ADM.2:5 - Archetypal Grounding
ADM.2:5.1 - One access request, three different grounds
This constructed case concerns Mara reading collection R on 2 October for experiment E. The supplied archive rule makes an effective research appointment an eligibility condition. It authorizes the archive custodian to grant access and assigns technical configuration of an approved grant to Lee. The following case facts are supplied:
| Relevant relation | Supplied fact | Administrative consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Research appointment | Mara’s appointment is effective from 1 October and covers experiment E. | The appointment satisfies this case’s stated appointment condition on 2 October. |
| Read grant | The custodian’s valid grant permits Mara to read collection R during October. It excludes downloading. | The permitted action is reading within that scope and interval. |
| Configuration responsibility and permission | Lee is assigned and permitted to configure the granted access. | Lee can perform that configuration; a different access decision remains with the custodian. |
The handler can now ask Lee to repair Mara’s failed login under the read grant. The result of this pattern is the participant and relation account that makes that request legitimate and precise. Whether Mara can actually read the collection still depends on successful provision.
A download request is a different action. The handler can state that it falls outside the supplied grant and return it through the archive’s applicable decision route. The read grant is not widened by the technical availability of a download button.
ADM.2:5.2 - A familiar name identifies the wrong person
A directory contains two people named Mara. The appointment refers to one and the account request to the other. The handler first establishes the participant identity using the relevant sources. The appointment cannot be applied to the second person merely because the name matches.
If the identity and appointment were already unambiguous in an adequate request, the handler would reuse them. This pattern does not impose duplicate identity checking on every case.
ADM.2:5.3 - An applicable rule and an unresolved conflict
In both branches of this constructed case, Mara has the valid October read grant for collection R. A current security restriction prohibits reading that collection from 09:00 to 11:00 local time on 2 October. Her intended read is at 09:30. The grant and restriction therefore give incompatible conclusions about the same participant, action, collection and interval. The supplied authority account names the archive policy owner as the person authorized to resolve this kind of conflict.
In the first branch, an applicable policy explicitly gives that temporary security restriction precedence over read grants during the stated interval. The handler applies the rule and returns its result: the restriction governs Mara’s 09:30 read, so that action cannot proceed under the grant. No further discretionary decision is needed to settle this inquiry. The result concerns the stated overlap; it does not rewrite the October grant.
In the second branch, the same grant, restriction, intended action and decision authority are supplied, but no applicable precedence rule or existing resolving decision is available. The handler returns the particular unresolved question to the archive policy owner: which claim governs Mara’s read of R at 09:30 within the 09:00–11:00 restriction? Naming that person does not supply the answer. The handler does not authorize the disputed read from these inputs.