FIDE Laws of Chess

A semantic SEARCH over formalised law: a question or a notion in your own words → candidates with addresses — predicates with signatures, rules, article fragments. This is the layer of DISCOVERY, not of the answer: the result says WHAT to ask next (law_ask by signature, law_rules, law_sources) and establishes neither a fact nor a norm. The ranking is a deterministic lexical embedder, and similarit

Passport of an exact release: purpose, interface, boundaries, checks and performance. The reports section holds the history of measurements, failures included. Entries are paged by JSON Pointer; next continues the answer.

A machine-readable matrix of the Lens producers that are actually installed, of replay/projection checks, profiles, limits and the contract tests that confirm them. declared_only means a schema with no executable witness.

Run a registered producer and obtain producerControl/0.2 for a later verifiable preparation of a Lens. The producer is chosen only from the shipped registry.

At the explicit request of the user, repeat between 1 and 12 earlier law_ask or law_process_run calls, compare their replayControl strictly, and prepare a non-public frozen document for 24 hours. The client never supplies the machine answer: the server obtains it only by executing afresh. A divergence in any input, in the law, in a resource, in the server code, in the engine library or in the resu

Publish a prepared document. Repeating it with the same preparationId idempotently returns the same URL and the same separate revocation secret.

Revoke a published document using its separate secret. The public id alone grants no control; revocation closes the HTML page, the API and the download.

The catalogue of formalised law: instruments, predicates with signatures, the boundaries of coverage. This is where the NAMES of predicates come from — they must never be guessed. But do NOT start from the catalogue when looking for the right instrument: the overview is large, and the title of an instrument rarely matches the words of a question ("Newton's laws of motion" contains no word "physics

Put a question to formalised law. When the answer is "not established" it carries whyNot — the engine's why_not report: the candidate rules and the state of every conjunct (satisfied / not satisfied / undetermined); the missing facts are visible there and need not be guessed. BEFORE THE FIRST call obtain the predicate names through law_search (a question in your own words → addresses) or law_packa

Build a necessary condition — a superset — for the preliminary selection of rows from an external source. This is NOT a legal answer and NOT SQL: the result is a typed tree and a manifest of the extensions up to TRUE. Every row that passes must then be computed in full by the engine, with a proof graph, on the same snapshot of the data. The binding is passed as a pinnable object; sourceSchemaConte

The rules of formalised law put into words: exactly how a predicate is derived (premises, source articles). Call this BEFORE supplying facts to law_ask — the rules say which facts are needed instead of leaving them to be guessed. For large instruments package=… returns a table of contents; the full text comes from predicate=…. The listing by package is paged: limit (20 by default, 500 at most) and

Unfold the proof of a law_ask answer into a chain "rule ← premises → conclusion". The compact input: question (the original law_ask arguments, truth/collect), resultHash and codeHash from the provenance of the answer. The server repeats the computation and compares the hashes; if anything changed it refuses explicitly. Alternatively pass the evaluation from law_ask(proof=true). answerResource=full

Evaluation inspector over a SAVED evaluation document: summary — the origin card, resultHash and snapshot verification, listings of results, positions and issues; slice — the closure of proof nodes for a query, rule, position or node with addresses, both sides of BOTH, defeats, values, names resolved against the snapshot; diff — what changed between two documents on the context, result and justifi

The ask operation: run a registered case of a case package over its pinned dependencies and return the answer: by default a projection of the evaluation document without the proof graph, on responseMode full or proof: true the canonical document with a proof and a manifest. The question is JSON per query.schema.json (query), an evaluate string (evaluate + queryId), a saved queryId without query, o

Sources: by default short excerpts (view=summary), 5 texts per page, with the address of the full text in fragments[].full. Either package or fragment is required (a StableId from law_search/law_rules). view=full returns exact parts of the text: textRange sets a range of Unicode characters, fragments[].next is the continuation with a contentHash. The hash refers to the WHOLE source, not to the exc

A deterministic LawQL query over the CLIR of a formalization: a question about the model of the act itself, not about a case. Relations (14): anchors, edges, fields, imports, interpretations, labels, links, literals, nodes, norms, positions, rules, variables, windows. Full field lists: `law query --schema`. Functions (9): anchor/1, labels/1..2, short/1, contains/2, overlaps/2, starts_with/2, ends_