A.6.B:8.4.1 - Micro-procedure (Atomize → Classify → Triangle → Link → Bind References → Recompose)
Step 1 — Atomize. Split mixed prose into atomic claims; each must classify to exactly one quadrant.
Step 2 — Classify (L/A/D/E).
- L if the claim is truth‑conditional and adjudicable in‑description (inspection, proof or type validation, or model reasoning over declared assumptions): definitions, invariants, typing and well-formedness constraints.
Guardrails:
L-*MUST NOT (i) use RFC deontic keywords as operators, (ii) encode runtime entry predicates (those areA-*), or (iii) assert evidence existence or measurement outcomes (those areE-*). - A if it is an in‑work gate predicate: what the mechanism admits at application time (“admissible iff …”). It is not a duty and MUST NOT be phrased as one.
Guardrails:
A-*SHOULD be written in predicate form and MUST NOT (i) use RFC deontic keywords as if it were an agent obligation, (ii) claim that evidence carriers exist (that isE-*), or (iii) assign responsibility or enforcement (that isD-*). (Do not confuse this withSignature.Applicability: applicability scopes intended meaning and intended use; it is not a runtime entry gate.) - D if the exact atomic statement states either a generic prescription or an individual duty, recommendation-as-duty, prohibition, or commitment. A permissive sentence enters D only through the Grant or norm row below. Guardrails: a generic claim names the exact normative episteme and applicable rule content without inventing an individual relation. An individual-duty claim names its actual bearer and exact separately obtaining A.2.8 commitment. A grant claim instead follows the participant and ground test in the Grant or norm row. A system-role kind or assignment may be a rule ground but is neither bearer nor deontic relation. Writing any claim does not make its object obtain.
- E if it is an in-work truth-conditional claim whose satisfaction requires actual work, evaluation, observation, or produced carriers.
Predicate-specific minimum: name the exact
E-*predicate and object, then the actual work, evaluation, or observation, scope/window, comparison frame, and other settling conditions that this predicate needs. Add an evidence or source-use relation, carrier/schema, viewpoint, or consumer only when the receiving gate, plan, audit, assurance, or other reliance decision depends on that support. Guardrails:E-*SHOULD NOT use RFC deontic keywords and MUST NOT hide a gate predicate (that isA-*). A reference toD-*follows §6.4: identify the evidence target or normative evaluation input, then establish the E result under its own predicate. (If the source sentence is “Role SHALL measure, retain, or expose …”, first decide whether it is a generic prescription about an exact system-role kind or a claim about one actual bearer. Classify either as D, but assert an individual commitment only on the second route.)
Step 3 — Triangle decomposition. Recover the observability clause’s predicate and modality under §6.3. Use the A/D/E triangle only when the source states an entry condition, a generic prescription or individual duty, and an actual observation or result:
- A: the admissibility predicate (what must be true to treat the claim as applicable),
- D → A: which exact policy prescribes keeping or enforcing the predicate, or which actual bearer has that separately instituted duty; any responsibility relation is stated separately under its direct domain predicate
- E → A: the actual observation or result and, when needed, the evidence or traces used to adjudicate the predicate.
A requirement to produce or retain evidence stays in D. Preserve an expectation or plan without inventing an actual E result.
Permission-word branch (use only when the sentence sounds permissive). Choose the row by the job the sentence performs, not by the word may, approved, authorized, or permitted.
| Branch | Ask this plain question | Square result | Subject pattern and what closes the row |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grant or norm | Does the sentence state a generic prescription, claim that one actual bearer has an individual duty, or tell a named beneficiary which action is permitted and under what conditions? | D | Use A.2.8 for the generic-prescription or individual-duty route; only the individual route cites one separately obtaining commitment. For a grant use A.2.8.PER: name the exact grant occurrence, beneficiary, action, scope/window, and policy-valid A.2.9 act with its performer and assignment; confirm current policy conditions and absence of valid revocation or supersession; cite evidence needed before reliance. |
| Gate predicate or result | Does the sentence state the mechanism condition for entry, or claim one actual A.21 decision for a bounded action? | A for the entry predicate; E for the actual decision result | Keep the mechanism predicate as its own A-* claim. For an actual decision, use one separate E-* claim naming the exact GateDecisionResult, bounded action, applicable profile application, complete required GateCheckApplicationResult set, scope/window, decisionValue, action consequence, and recheck condition. A grant, finding, or conflict is only an input; neither the predicate nor the result creates or resolves it. |
| Actual exercise | Did this dated Work match the named grant’s action and beneficiary while that grant was in force? | E | Use A.2.8.PER PermissionExerciseRelation@Context: name the exact Work, grant occurrence, performer/assignment or on-behalf-of ground, scope, and interval. A failed match means that exercise relation does not obtain. |
| Weak evaluation or non-violation | Did an evaluation of a current, sufficiently complete normative frame find no applicable prohibition before action, or no violation in the actual Work? | E | Use the exact NonProhibitionFinding@Context or NonViolationFinding@Context, its evaluation Work, frame, subject/action or Work, scope, and window. A stale or incomplete frame returns unresolved. |
| Conflict | Do a current grant and norm cover the same case, and has a rule or authorized decision actually selected the outcome? | E | Use A.2.8.PER PermissionNormConflictFinding@Context. Cite the applicable selecting rule or the admitted system’s authorized dated decision Work and current resolution result; otherwise keep the finding unresolved. |
| Source or display only | Does the sentence only say that a permit, badge, registry entry, message, or carrier exists, displays, or evidences something? | E for an observed carrier/evidence claim; L for its definition | Use A.10/G.6 for evidence and the applicable publication or carrier pattern. A visible or published item is not itself a grant, exercise, finding, or resolution. |
Choose one row. If one sentence answers two questions, split it before classification. If the sentence is not permission-like, do not use this branch. The branch classifies claims and selects existing subject patterns; it creates no permission result umbrella. Use the filled case in §8.4.5.4 when a concrete model is needed; point back to that case rather than adding another pattern list.
Guideline. Keep gate semantics independent of specific evidence carriers:
write the gate predicate in A-*; when an actual observation or result is stated,
put it in E-* and reference the gate (E → A). A-* claims MUST NOT reference E-* (no upward dependencies), even though E-* is used to adjudicate gate satisfaction.
Step 4 — Link by ID or canonical location, not by paraphrase. Apply the cross-quadrant restrictions in §6.4, including its explicitly informative-note exception for L references to A/D/E. Same-quadrant references remain available.
Common link motifs (informative). The most reusable boundary rewrites use D→A, E→A, D→E, A/E→L, and D→L; E→D identifies an evidence target or normative evaluation input under §6.4.
Step 5 — Bind references (minimal A.7 discipline).
- Place L claims in
Signature.Laws(and mechanism-local semantic laws if present), and A claims inMechanism.AdmissibilityConditions. - Bind a generic D claim to its exact normative episteme and applicable rule content. Bind an individual-duty D claim to its actual duty-bearing System or separately governed party and exact
U.Commitment; cite an assignment only when the constitutive rule uses it as a ground. State responsibility and authority, when claimed, through their own admitted direct relations or exact missing governors. Prefer ID or canonical-location references rather than restatingL-*orA-*content. - Bind each E claim first to its exact predicate/object and to the actual work, evaluation, observation, scope/window, comparison frame, and other conditions that settle that predicate. Add a carrier/schema, evidence or source-use relation, viewpoint, and consumer only when a receiving reliance decision depends on them; a claim about a carrier’s own existence or condition names the carrier as its object.
Optional drift-control. Add each L/A/D/E-classified claim verbatim to a Claim Register row (A.6.B:7) with canonical location + references so faces can cite by ID or canonical location without paraphrase.
Step 6 — Recompose into readable text. Include only the claim classes present in the source. Use separate Tech and Plain forms when their readers need them; both may also serve as a teaching aid.
- Tech recomposition: a short L/A/D/E-classified claim bundle listing the present claims and their ID or canonical-location references.
- Plain recomposition: a one-paragraph narrative that summarizes the bundle and cites its claims (no new semantics). If you need a new constraint, add a new atomic L/A/D/E-classified claim to the canonical source before publishing it in Plain.