#A.6.C:8 — Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them
Preface node
heading:a-6-c-8-common-anti-patterns-and-how-to-avoid-them:7892
#Content
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Repair |
|---|---|---|
| Interface-as-promiser (“the API promises…”) | Epistemes are descriptions; they do not commit | Name the committing role/agent; route as D claim; keep the signature as utterance substrate |
| Guarantee-without-substrate | “Guarantee” is empty unless it is L, D, or E | Decide: semantic law (L), deontic commitment (D), or evidenced property (E) |
| SLA smuggled into laws | Mixes governance with semantics; breaks substitution reasoning | Put SLA targets as D claims referencing L-defined metrics and E evidence |
| Gate written as obligation | Confuses admissibility predicates with duties | Write predicate as A; write duty-to-gate as D→A reference |
| Evidence as prose property (“document proves…”) | Violates Object≠Description≠Carrier | State evidence as E claims about carriers produced/observed in work |
| Face-level paraphrase drift | Creates multiple incompatible contracts | Faces should reference canonical claims; keep commitments centralized |
| Cross‑scale contract collapse | Different agents claim incompatible “contracts” at different scales/contexts | Represent each as separate, scoped D-* claims (with accountable roles + Context); route conflicts to conflict/mediation patterns rather than collapsing them into one “contract”. |