A.6.B:11 - Common Anti‑Patterns and How to Avoid Them

Anti‑pattern	Symptom	Why it fails	Repair (square‑consistent)
Gate‑as‑law	Preconditions written as “laws”	Collapses signature or mechanism boundary; breaks substitution	Move to `A-` in Mechanism.AdmissibilityConditions; reference `L-` terms.
Deontics in predicates	“MUST” inside definitions or gates	Confuses governance with truth or admissibility	Rewrite the definition or gate as `L-`/`A-`; add a generic `D-*` prescription or an independently established individual-duty claim when current.
Interface‑as‑promiser	“The API promises or guarantees …”	Category error: interface descriptions do not commit	Recover the exact policy and generic prescription, or the actual bearer and separately obtaining `U.Commitment` when an individual duty is claimed; keep measured property (`E-`) and metric definition (`L-`) separate, and use `A.6.C` when ambiguity in that wording changes the claim’s interpretation or use.
Unestablished operational-result guarantees	An asserted p95 result lacks its actual evaluation	The operational-result claim lacks the basis needed to settle it	Use `A.6.C:4.3` when the guarantee’s meaning is ambiguous. For an operational result, state the actual Work, evaluation, or observation, predicate and object, scope/window, and result; if that basis is absent, leave the result unestablished. Add A.10 support and a `D-* → E-*` link only when the receiving reliance and duty claims need them. A carrier-existence observation alone does not complete the measured claim.
Paraphrase drift	Same rule restated across faces	Divergence becomes invisible	Use claim IDs or canonical locations; faces cite them; optional Claim Register.
View‑fork semantics	A face introduces new L/A/D/E content	Violates “no new semantics” publication discipline	Put any new boundary claim in its canonical source before publishing it on a face. Mark explanatory commentary informative when it adds no boundary semantics.