Reserve Predicate Vocabularies to Specific Forms

Form-specific predicates are reserved to the forms whose Contracts introduce them. has_commitment:: and decided_on:: appear on Decisions; they MUST NOT appear on Patterns, Convictions, Aspirations, Observations, References, or Glosses. has_epistemic_status:: appears on Observations; it MUST NOT appear on Convictions, Aspirations, Decisions, Patterns, References, or Glosses. serves_as:: appears on References; it MUST NOT appear on forms where an external-source role claim would mis-classify. The prohibitions compose — each form's Contract specifies both the predicates it requires and the predicates it forbids, and the forbidden-from lists cross-reference across forms.

Why

The commitment makes predicate vocabulary carry form distinctness at the graph level. A node's form is asserted by conforms_to::[[X Form Contract]], but the predicate vocabulary the node actually uses is a stronger signal — a node that asserts conformance to Conviction Form Contract while also asserting has_commitment::[[Provisional Commitment]] is internally inconsistent, because has_commitment:: is a Decision predicate. The form-specific vocabulary is what makes conformance checkable beyond the single conforms_to:: assertion: the presence or absence of form-specific predicates tells a validator or curator whether the node's practice matches its stated form.

A query filtering on a form-specific predicate returns exactly nodes of that form. has_commitment:: filters for Decisions; has_epistemic_status:: filters for Observations. Without the reservation, the same predicates could appear on nodes of other forms — a Conviction carrying has_commitment:: because its author wanted to mark a "firm" stance, a Pattern carrying has_epistemic_status:: because its author wanted to note the empirical grounds of an instance — and the query's selectivity would degrade. The filter would return a mix of genuine Decisions and non-Decisions that borrowed Decision predicates, and the reader would have to audit each match.

The commitment is the form-level expression of [[Adopt Predicate Atomicity]]. Predicate atomicity says each predicate answers one question; form-specific reservation says each predicate is asked only of the forms where the question makes sense. has_commitment:: asks "what level of commitment does this Decision carry?" — the question assumes Decision-form context. Asking it of a Conviction produces a category error — Convictions don't commit situationally; they hold stances — and the answer is either meaningless (the Conviction has no situational commitment to level) or misleading (the author imports Decision semantics into a Conviction-shaped node, confusing later readers).

The commitment bundles the full set of cross-form predicate reservations — has_commitment:: and decided_on:: on Decisions only, has_epistemic_status:: on Observations only, serves_as:: on References only, with the mirror prohibitions across all other forms — into one Decision because they share one Why (predicate vocabulary carries form distinctness) and roll back together (weakening any one reservation would unwind the form-distinctness property the others depend on). Each form Contract's specific requirement ("a Conviction MUST NOT carry has_commitment::...") is a thin enforcement clause pointing back at this Decision.

Alternatives Considered

Shared predicate vocabulary with form disambiguation by conforms_to::. Let has_commitment:: appear on any form; let readers and validators distinguish Decision semantics from non-Decision semantics by checking conforms_to:: separately. Rejected because the disambiguation burden compounds across every query. Every filter that wants Decisions with has_commitment::[[Firm Commitment]] has to compose two predicates; every reader encountering has_commitment:: has to check conforms_to:: to know whether the assertion carries Decision semantics or something else. The reservation rule is what lets the predicate be self-identifying — its presence asserts Decision form along with the commitment level.

Form-specific predicate namespaces. Distinguish form-specific predicates by naming (decision:has_commitment::, observation:has_epistemic_status::). Rejected because the namespace prefix adds authoring and reading cost with no graph-level benefit over the reservation rule. A reader encountering has_commitment:: without a prefix does not know which form's semantics are in play; with the reservation rule, they know it is Decision semantics. The namespace approach addresses the same ambiguity less cleanly.

Permit cross-form usage with explicit semantics per form. Let has_commitment:: mean one thing on Decisions, another on Convictions, another on Patterns. Rejected because it violates [[Adopt Predicate Atomicity]]. Predicate atomicity requires each predicate to answer one question; cross-form usage would make has_commitment:: carry multiple axes (commitment level for Decisions, held-firmness for Convictions, adoption status for Patterns). The predicate would fail atomicity by semantic bundling even if each form kept its own meaning sharp.

What Would Change It

The commitment would be revisited under one condition.

The form distinctions collapse or the predicates become genuinely shared. If a future refactor merged forms (Decision and Conviction collapsing into a single "commitment" form, say) the reservation rules would merge with them. Alternatively, if experience showed that some form-specific predicates were genuinely useful on other forms — if Aspirations benefited from has_commitment:: to mark how firmly the project is pursuing the target, with a semantics that is genuinely the same as Decision commitment levels — the reservation would loosen predicate by predicate, not wholesale. Current form distinctions are active and the predicates carry form-specific semantics; no pressure exists.

Relations