Special rule over general

Intention

I want to pin the superiority of a special rule explicitly.

A special rule with more conditions but no priority still leaves BOTH.

Correct formFrozen execution sceneBoundary

Incorrect form and why it stays silent

Incorrect form

// У Special больше условий; priority отсутствует.

The number of conditions does not create superiority. Without an edge both opposite supports remain.

Correct form

Arxo Law

language "law.core" version "0.2";
package recipes.b.r05 version "0.1.0";
namespace "urn:recipe:b-rules:05";

entity Person;
relation eligible(p: Person);
relation special(p: Person);
relation allowed(p: Person);
rule General defeasible { for p: Person; when eligible(p); then allowed(p); }
rule Special defeasible { for p: Person; when eligible(p) and special(p); then not allowed(p); }
priority SpecialWins { prefer Special over General; reason lex_specialis; }

Frozen execution scene

Facts and choice	Question	Answer
special case	truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")))	FALSE_ONLY / COMPUTED
priority removed	truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")))	BOTH / COMPUTED
general case	truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")))	TRUE_ONLY / COMPUTED

special case

Arxo Law

test "special case" {
    given {
        context {
            legal_time @2026-09-13;
            decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            timezone "Asia/Almaty";
        }
        assert eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")); assert special(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")));
    expect truth_status == FALSE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}

priority removed

Arxo Law

test "priority removed" {
    given {
        context {
            legal_time @2026-09-13;
            decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            timezone "Asia/Almaty";
        }
        assert eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")); assert special(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")));
    expect truth_status == BOTH;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}

general case

Arxo Law

test "general case" {
    given {
        context {
            legal_time @2026-09-13;
            decision_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            knowledge_time @2026-09-13T09:00:00+05:00;
            timezone "Asia/Almaty";
        }
        assert eligible(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p"));
    }
    evaluate truth(allowed(entity_ref("urn:recipe:b-rules:05:p")));
    expect truth_status == TRUE_ONLY;
    expect evaluation_status == COMPUTED;
}

Counterfactual

Mutation: rule General defeasible → rule General strict; rejection LDC-E4105. Scenes that delete a fragment are marked explicitly in the table.

Boundary

The lex_specialis ground names an accepted priority rule. Automatic proof of nested scopes is not claimed here. Different money values are Different amounts are not opposites.

Pitfall

More conditions do not create superiority: without a priority edge, the special rule leaves BOTH.