G.4:8 - Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them
-
Hidden thresholds. Avoid: embedding cutoffs in CHR prose or in operator descriptions. Prefer:
CAL.AcceptanceClausewith explicit ids and pins. -
Untyped “score(x)”. Avoid: operators with implicit units and untracked legality assumptions. Prefer: explicit CHR‑typed operator signatures + cited legality checks.
-
Silent cross-sense or cross-plane reuse. Avoid: importing expressions with distinct source-local meanings, or values across ReferencePlanes or editions, without the obtaining relation and required crossing records. Prefer: cite the exact F.17 cells and F.9 relation when meanings differ, cite the applicable plane or edition crossing records, and keep each clause bounded by its stated
ClaimScopeand window. -
Acceptance as implementation detail. Avoid: acceptance embedded in tool logic. Prefer: publish acceptance as citable CAL artifacts; downstream consumes ids.
-
Exploratory telemetry treated as dominance. Avoid: letting probe/illumination telemetry quietly become a dispatch criterion. Prefer: keep it report‑only unless an explicit policy‑bound acceptance clause authorizes promotion.
-
Declaration mistaken for execution. Avoid: treating a CAL card,
TaskMap, proof-ledger row, worked example, or evidence edge as proof that an operator ran or a verdict obtained. Prefer: recover every precise performer’s A.13 core, let A.15.1 independently admit the dated Work, and add F.6 only when exact assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining assignment is current; recover actual direct bindings separately. Compact wording may omit only an unused assignment identifier and no consumed fact. Keep the domain-local result and any result episteme separate from both.