Logic Constraints

Consistency Check Trace

Consistency checks display satisfied, unknown, and conflict trace rows only. Honesty note: simplified toy logic-constraint workflow, corpus-light with no neochart dependency; the pinned first step carries the full honesty note.

highlighted = computed this step

Logic constraint honesty note

Honesty note: simplified toy logic-constraint workflow; corpus-light and no neochart dependency; jurisdictions and interpretations vary; as of June 24, 2026; not legal advice; code encodes a stated interpretation workflow, not the law itself.

logic constraints as of June24,2026\text{logic constraints as of }June 24, 2026

Use a trace instead of a conclusion

The stated process checks each predicate row and leaves the result as a trace row for review.

trace rows for review\text{trace rows for review}

Example trace data

The toy facts are notice_present true, record_complete unknown, and review_flag conflict.

true unknown conflict\text{true unknown conflict}

The trace recomputes row status

This trace has 1 condition satisfied row, 1 unknown row, and 1 conflict row.

satisfied=1,unknown=1,conflict=1\text{satisfied}=1,\quad \text{unknown}=1,\quad \text{conflict}=1

Diagram note

The diagram is a prong trace. Satisfied, unknown, and conflict are row labels only, not advice or a case result.

trace labels only\text{trace labels only}

Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; Code encodes a stated interpretation workflow, not the law itself.

Consistency check trace notice_known: satisfied via notice_present=True compare=True record_known: unknown via record_complete=None compare=True review_flag_clear: conflict via review_flag=conflict compare=True

Summary

Consistency checks are useful because they keep known, missing, and conflicting inputs separated for review.

separate review rows\text{separate review rows}