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.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; Code encodes a stated interpretation workflow, not the law itself.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
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.
Use a trace instead of a conclusion
The stated process checks each predicate row and leaves the result as a trace row for review.
Example trace data
The toy facts are notice_present true, record_complete unknown, and review_flag conflict.
The trace recomputes row status
This trace has 1 condition satisfied row, 1 unknown row, and 1 conflict row.
Diagram note
The diagram is a prong trace. Satisfied, unknown, and conflict are row labels only, not advice or a case result.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; Code encodes a stated interpretation workflow, not the law itself.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Summary
Consistency checks are useful because they keep known, missing, and conflicting inputs separated for review.