A.2.8:4 - Solution

A.2.8:4.1 - Direct Participants and Predicate Parameters

One U.Commitment occurrence has:

• exactly one actual duty bearer, expressed by either dutyBearerSystemRef : U.EntityRef constrained to an admitted U.System or a separately governed local dutyBearerPartyRef : PartyRef;
• a non-empty exact set of duty referents stating the action, avoidance, outcome, promise content, claim, or other governed object to which the duty applies; and
• optional actual counterparties or beneficiaries when the duty is owed to someone.

Exactly one duty-bearer branch is filled. A system-role kind, classification judgment, assignment occurrence, organizational-position label, publication, policy, or claim record is not the bearer.

The normalized modality is a by-value predicate parameter:

DeonticModalityToken ::= MUST | MUST_NOT | SHOULD | SHOULD_NOT

SHALL and REQUIRED map to MUST; SHALL NOT and PROHIBITED map to MUST_NOT; RECOMMENDED maps to SHOULD; and NOT RECOMMENDED maps to SHOULD_NOT only after the source claim has been recovered as a duty. MAY and OPTIONAL do not normalize into U.Commitment; route their current meaning to A.2.8.PER, an admissibility predicate, or ordinary prose.

Scope and validity delimit applicability. Duty referents are cited by exact identifiers when they already exist. Useful duty referents include a claim, an instance of U.PromiseContent, an action or outcome specification, an admitted Method, or an already identified Work occurrence when the duty concerns that occurrence. A MethodDescription is cited only when the duty depends on claims in that exact episteme edition; description is not mandatory indirection to the Method.

The current normative policy or prescription, its constitutive rule, the actual instituting basis, provenance, and adjudication evidence are grounds or qualifiers. They are not extra duty bearers and do not become deontic participants by appearing in a record.

A.2.8:4.2 - When the Relation Obtains

For proposed occurrence C, the direct predicate C : U.Commitment obtains only when all of the following hold:

1. the actual duty bearer and any actual counterparties are admitted, and the duty referents are identified;
2. one identified normative policy or prescription is current and applies to those participants, referents, scope, and time;
3. that policy contains or cites one exact constitutive rule for an individual commitment rather than only generic content about a system-role kind;
4. the rule’s required instituting basis and world-side facts obtain;
5. modality, scope, validity window, and every rule-required condition are satisfied; and
6. no valid revocation, defeat, expiry, or supersession has ended the relation.

For the current A.2.9 path, the instituting basis is an actual U.SpeechAct Work occurrence recognized by the current policy, with the actual performer and exact covering system-role assignment independently established. Another basis is usable only when a subject pattern admits it and gives its occurrence rule.

If the corpus lacks the constitutive rule or the required instituting-relation predicate, return missing-governor[individual commitment institution]. If available facts establish that a required obtaining condition is false, the proposed commitment does not obtain. If a required evidence dependency is unavailable, reliance on the assertion is unknown; do not invent the relation or infer its negation.

A.2.8:4.3 - Occurrence Identity and Continuity

One occurrence is identified by:

• the actual duty bearer;
• exact duty referents and counterparties;
• normalized modality and scope;
• constitutive policy and rule;
• the actual instituting basis, only when that rule makes the basis identity-bearing; and
• one maximal continuous validity interval.

The actual instituting basis is always required for obtaining. It is part of occurrence identity only when the exact constitutive rule says that reinstitution identifies another duty. A compatible policy edition, new record, or later instituting act preserves the occurrence only through an explicit continuity decision showing that every identity-bearing fact and the rule’s deontic effect continue. A changed bearer, modality, referent set, constitutive rule, identity-bearing basis, or interrupted validity prevents reuse of the same occurrence identity. Establish the new commitment under §4.2 before asserting another occurrence. The commitment ID and its describing claim do not decide sameness.

When a rule makes a duty end with a system-role assignment, an assignment boundary ends that commitment. When the rule makes the duty persist for the same actual system across a replacement assignment, state that continuity explicitly. A duty for a different actual bearer, if it obtains under §4.2, has another occurrence identity.

A.2.8:4.4 - Generic Prescriptions and Assignment-Mediated Rules

A generic prescription states what one exact policy or other normative episteme requires; it does not create an individual duty bearer or commitment occurrence. A claim that one actual System or separately governed party has that duty instead cites one separately obtaining A.2.8 U.Commitment.

For example, a policy can concern ProviderSystemRole or another exact local system-role kind. Its systemRoleKindRef : U.KindRef can appear in the rule’s antecedent, but the policy episteme is not an individual U.Commitment.

An exact systemRoleAssignmentRef : U.RelationRef constrained to U.SystemRoleAssignment can show that an actual system satisfies one applicability condition for a time. The assignment is still not the duty bearer or the commitment relation. The only valid direction is:

current policy or prescription
+ exact constitutive rule
+ actual admitted system
+ obtaining exact system-role assignment or other rule-required facts
+ actual instituting basis required by that rule
-> one separately identified U.Commitment whose duty bearer is that actual system

Classification or assignment alone never completes the implication. The rule states whether the duty starts, continues, and ends with the assignment.

A.2.8:4.5 - Assertion, Record, and Adjudication

An assertion or record about a commitment is a separately identified claim-bearing episteme. A compact reliance record can expose:

CommitmentAssertion:
  entityOfConcernRef: U.RelationRef constrained to one exact U.Commitment occurrence
  dutyBearerSystemRef? | dutyBearerPartyRef?: the actual bearer stated by the relation
  dutyReferentRefs: non-empty exact set
  counterpartyRefs?: actual counterparties or beneficiaries
  modality: normalized by-value token
  scopeRef:
  validityWindowRef:
  constitutivePolicyRef: exact current normative episteme edition
  constitutiveRuleRef: exact rule claim
  institutingBasisRef: exact actual basis required by that rule
  evidenceClaimRefs?: exact support used for reliance or adjudication
  carrierRefs?: carriers used as evidence or source
  assertionStatus: affirmed | denied | unresolved

Use the record to describe the relation. evidenceClaimRefs and carriers support reliance; they are not participants or instituting facts unless the identified constitutive rule makes one such fact current and the pattern for that subject supplies its test. If adjudication is intended, cite the exact evidence claims, criteria, and carriers. If no adjudication is claimed, do not invent an audit apparatus.

When a later use must compare incompatible commitments, keep the commitments unchanged and carry the needed conflict inputs in one local claim:

CommitmentConflictInputClaim:
  selectionUseRef: exact conflict or choice question
  commitmentRows: non-empty set of
    commitmentRef: U.RelationRef constrained to one exact U.Commitment occurrence
    institutingBasisRef: exact actual basis required by its constitutive rule
    issuingSystemRef | issuingPartyRef: exactly one actual issuer recoverable from that basis
    authorityRelationRef?: U.RelationRef constrained by the direct authority predicate used by selectionUseRef
  selectingRuleRef?: exact priority or choice rule required by selectionUseRef
  unresolvedInputRefs?: exact missing-information or missing-governor results

These conflict inputs stay outside commitment identity by default. Each authority relation must already obtain under its own predicate, and each selecting rule must be current and applicable to this selection use under the pattern that defines it. If this selection use requires an authority relation or selecting rule and that input is unavailable or no current pattern defines it, put its exact unresolved result in unresolvedInputRefs, such as missing-governor[commitment conflict authority relation] or missing-governor[commitment conflict selecting rule]. An optional field means that the input is not required for this use; it never licenses dropping a required input. For an interlevel ethical conflict, use D.3 to map the conflict and D.4 for mediation or decision use. When an explicit choice among already available options is current, C.11 supplies the ChoiceRule and ChoiceResult. Otherwise apply the direct pattern for the claimed conflict result; if none exists, return missing-governor[commitment conflict resolution].

Evidence used only to measure or verify the duty belongs to the support for the assertion. An evidence-producing or evidence-retaining duty instead names that production or retention content among its duty referents.

A.2.8:4.6 - Direct Neighboring Relations

The common corpus has no universal responsibility predicate. VP.AllocationResponsibility can help a reader recognize the concern; the applicable domain responsibility predicate determines whether the relation obtains.

A.2.8:4.7 - Boundary Claim Use

An A.6.B D-quadrant claim about an obtaining individual obligation, recommendation-as-duty, or prohibition cites the exact U.Commitment occurrence. A D-claim about generic policy content remains a claim about that content until the individual predicate above is satisfied.

Strong or weak permission, exercise, non-violation, and permission-conflict claims cite their exact A.2.8.PER result and do not acquire a U.Commitment payload. Gates remain A-claims, laws and definitions remain L-claims, and Work and evidence effects remain E-claims.