A.6.B:5.3 — Quadrant D: Deontics & Commitments

Intent. State one atomic deontic claim. 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. When a sentence sounds permissive, use §8.4.1; only its Grant or norm row enters D. Writing the D-* sentence neither institutes a relation nor establishes compliance.

Adjudication. For a generic prescription, inspect the exact normative source, its applicable rule content, scope, and current edition. For an individual duty, apply A.2.8 to the separately obtaining commitment and its actual basis. The wording itself decides neither obtaining nor compliance.

Canonical form. First choose the route. A generic D claim names the normative episteme and the rule content being stated, without inventing an individual bearer. An individual-duty D claim names the actual bearer and exact U.Commitment; a system-role kind or assignment may be a rule ground but is neither bearer nor duty. A responsibility claim uses an admitted domain responsibility predicate and its actual participants, or returns its exact missing governor. A permissive-looking word does not by itself select D; use §8.4.1 for the grant route. Examples:

• Generic: “APIEntryPolicy-v4 requires covered clients to satisfy A-….” No individual commitment is asserted.
• Individual: “Actual bearer ClientIntegrator-A has commitment COM-17 to satisfy A-….”

Canonical assertion (recommended; lintable). Use a CommitmentAssertion only when an individual-duty claim must be reused or audited. It concerns one exact separately obtaining U.Commitment and makes explicit:

• entityOfConcernRef, resolving to one exact U.Commitment occurrence, and the D-* claim ID;
• exactly one actual bearer branch: dutyBearerSystemRef or dutyBearerPartyRef;
• non-empty exact dutyReferentRefs and any actual counterparties;
• the A.2.8 DeonticModalityToken, scope, and validity window;
• the exact current constitutive policy, individualizing rule, and actual instituting basis required by that rule; and
• evidence-claim or carrier references only when the receiving reliance or adjudication needs them.

The assertion states and supports a claim about the relation. Its fields, publication, and evidence do not make the relation obtain.

Prohibitions.

• A generic D-* statement MUST NOT invent an individual bearer or commitment; name its exact normative source and rule content. An individual-duty D-* statement MUST NOT use “the system, service, interface, or specification” as a vague subject; name the actual duty-bearing system or separately governed party and exact U.Commitment, with an assignment only when the constitutive rule uses it as a ground. Use A.6.C when ambiguity in promise, utterance, approval, guarantee, or agreement-like boundary wording changes the claim’s interpretation or use.
• A D-* statement MUST NOT restate L-* or A-* predicates in new words when an ID exists; it SHOULD reference the ID or canonical location.
• A D-* statement MUST NOT pretend that a duty, commitment, or grant is a law or that writing the claim makes it obtain.

A.7 EntityOfConcern binding. A generic D-* claim episteme concerns the exact normative rule content it states. An individual D-* claim concerns the exact duty, commitment, or grant named by its content and does not substitute for that object. When permission wording is live, the branch in §8.4.1 names the subject pattern and the obtaining or non-obtaining test.

Required references (explicit).

• If a D-* claim states a prescription or duty to comply with a gate, it MUST reference the relevant A-* ID(s) or canonical location(s).
• If a D-* statement is meant to be auditable, it SHOULD reference the E-* claim(s) that provide evidence and the carrier classes involved.