Rule Models
Unknown and Conflict
Missing and conflicting facts remain explicit in a trace. Honesty note: US classroom stated-rule model; the pinned first step states the as-of date; not legal advice; code encodes an interpretation of a stated rule, not the law itself.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; Code encodes a stated structural model, not the law itself. RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Rules as code honesty note
Honesty note: US classroom stated-rule model; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; code encodes an interpretation of a stated rule, not the law itself.
Rules need uncertainty states
A trace should distinguish present facts, missing facts, and disputed facts instead of forcing a binary answer.
Example mixed fact packet
The toy packet has a known fact, a missing fact, and a disputed fact. The disputed fact is represented as a conflict row.
The trace preserves both problems
The trace keeps uncertainty visible. It has 1 unknown row and 1 conflict row.
Diagram note
The diagram is an uncertainty audit. Unknown and conflict are trace states, not advice.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; Code encodes a stated structural model, not the law itself. RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Narrow summary
When facts are missing or disputed, the model should show that status and hand the row to review.