Use a disputed fact deliberately

Intention

I want to order a review when there is positive support, even if the fact is contested.

Correct formFrozen execution sceneBoundary

Incorrect form and why it stays silent

A bare atom requires TRUE_ONLY and stays silent on BOTH:

Incorrect form

when registered(p) and (eligible(p));

Correct form

Arxo Law

language "law.core" version "0.2";
package recipes.v.r06 version "0.1.0";
namespace "urn:recipe:v-negation:06";

entity Person;
relation registered(p: Person);
relation eligible(p: Person);
relation review(p: Person);
// rationale: наличие положительного основания достаточно для проверки;
// спор об eligible при этом сохраняется и не считается разрешённым.
rule Review strict {
    for p: Person;
    when registered(p) and supported(eligible(p));
    then review(p);
}

Frozen execution scene

Facts	Question	Answer
registered, eligible	review(a)	TRUE_ONLY
registered, eligible, not eligible	eligible(a)	BOTH
same both supports	review(a)	TRUE_ONLY
same both supports, supported removed	review(a)	NEITHER
registered, only not eligible	review(a)	NEITHER

Counterfactual

evaluates.without removes the word supported: a lawful formula (eligible(p)) remains, and the conflict no longer activates Review. That is a change of reading, not deletion of the negative fact.

Boundary

Positive support does not resolve the dispute. The reason for the deliberate reading is written in the rationale comment. Recursion without that intention uses Walk a chain with strict recursion.

Pitfall

Using supported for ordinary recursion needlessly lifts the whole package to a higher stratum; monotone keeps it low. Here the higher stratum is chosen on purpose: we care about the positive side of a disputed fact. Both supports yield BOTH, an ordinary reader stays silent, and supported derives review. Replacing the test does not resolve the contradiction itself.