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.