nb-08 solutions — Which edition applies and when the term expires

← Back to lessonChapter 08 / 25 · Intermediate · Worked solution

How to verify

Checkable against law test packs/examples/language-demo/sources (6 checked, 6 passed) and law test packs/examples/language-demo/boundaries (21 checked, 21 passed). Identifiers and code as written.

1. eligibility_notice(ann) at legal_time @2025-06-01, resident with a vehicle

Answer: NEITHER — no rule fires.

NewEligibilityNotice carries effective [@2026-01-01, infinity), so at June 2025 it is silent even though both of its conditions hold. OldResidencyNotice is in force, but it concludes the different predicate residency_notice, not eligibility_notice. This is the before entry into force the 2026 rule is silent test: same facts as the in-force test, one axis moved, answer NEITHER.

2. ReplyOnTime on @2026-03-11 versus @2026-03-12, nothing filed

Answer: ACTIVE on 11 March, VIOLATED on 12 March.

Receipt was @2026-03-06; counting starts the next day (start_count next_day) and the window end is included (include_end true), so the two-business-day window’s last day is 11 March — the working days: the term includes the window end test expects position(ReplyOnTime, ACTIVE) there. By 12 March the window has closed with not reply_filed, so the overdue without performance test expects position(ReplyOnTime, VIOLATED). One day changes it because the end day itself still counts: expiry happens the day after the inclusive end, not on it.

3. Urgent application filed @2026-02-01: @2026-02-11 and @2026-03-03

Answer: TRUE_ONLY on 11 February (the FastTrack case fires); FALSE_ONLY on 3 March (the urgent case refutes the default).

urgent_appeal triggers case FastTrack … 10 calendar_day, so the due date is @2026-02-11 — the special case defeats the general term test. At @2026-03-03 (the 30-day default date) the answer is not silence but FALSE_ONLY: the defeated general term does not hold test shows the special case carries a negative head that refutes the default. The urgent filing is therefore due exactly once, early — it does not get two deadlines.

4. Delete deadline_policy WORKING_DAYS; from CaseAxes

Answer: the working days tests stop computing; the without a policy working days are not counted test names the outcome: NON_EXECUTABLE with issue(MISSING_POLICY).

Without a policy, add_business_days(on, 2 business_day) has no defined start/inclusion/roll, so every evaluation that needs it — the ACTIVE and the VIOLATED positions alike — becomes NON_EXECUTABLE instead of answering. The edition tests (1–3 of the suite) are unaffected: they use no business-day arithmetic. The lesson is the article’s rule of thumb restated: a business-day window without a policy is refused loudly, never guessed.

How to verify

Terminal

law test packs/examples/language-demo/sources

Expected: итого: 6 проверено, 6 прошли, 0 не прошли, 0 не исполнены. The deciding tests are 2026 edition: the rule is in force (TRUE_ONLY, applied(NewEligibilityNotice)), before entry into force the 2026 rule is silent (NEITHER), working days: the term includes the window end (ACTIVE), working days: overdue without performance (VIOLATED), and without a policy working days are not counted (NON_EXECUTABLE, MISSING_POLICY).

Terminal

law test packs/examples/language-demo/boundaries

Expected: итого: 21 проверено, 21 прошли, 0 не прошли, 0 не исполнены. The deciding tests are default term — 30 calendar days (TRUE_ONLY at @2026-03-03), special case defeats the general term (TRUE_ONLY at @2026-02-11), and defeated general term does not hold (FALSE_ONLY at @2026-03-03).