# Content temporarily unavailable
# Law restructuring

**Use when:** laws overlap, need a missing distinction, or might be better
expressed by merging, splitting, replacing, or removing them.

**Inputs:** the original laws with their authority, motivations, examples, and
limits. Include existing oracle owners. Do not simplify labels without first
recovering the obligations they represent.

## Operation

1. Decompose the laws into traceable obligations, conditions, distinctions,
   and promised observations. Check that these parts can reconstruct each
   original claim; invented categories can lose the essential constraint.
   If public wording and an executable owner disagree, retain both claims and
   the unresolved authority. A passing test alone cannot retire public wording.
2. Propose a different organization and state the operation: merge under a
   common principle, split by authority or checkpoint, replace a concept, or
   retire an obligation with an explicit reason. Fewer words or model fields
   alone do not establish improvement.
3. Map every original obligation to where it is preserved, narrowed, strengthened,
   rejected, or still unresolved in the candidate. State what insight originally
   made the obligation necessary. A claim may be defeated, but needs a reason
   and a design decision rather than disappearing from the mapping.
4. Derive old and proposed predictions for a witness exercising each distinction
   that the reorganization could erase. Compare both allowed and forbidden
   outcomes. Check whether the change accidentally forbids a valid implementation
   or admits one of the formerly rejected wrong designs.
5. When an independent preservation check is useful and authorized, give a fresh
   agent the original obligation, its sources, and one candidate. Hide sibling
   candidates and the author's preferred outcome. Ask what insight survives,
   what is defeated, and what smallest repair is needed. Without that separation,
   describe the result as a trace audit, not independent validation.

**Return:** the proposed organization, the old-to-new obligation mapping,
witnesses and their evidence status, losses, and unresolved design decisions.
Keeping the existing laws separate is a valid result.

**Control:** reconstruct each original obligation from the candidate and check
its discriminating witness. A semantic change may be justified, but is not an
equivalent refactor. Merging prose does not require merging executable owners
whose models or production boundaries differ.

**Distortion:** neat categories that erase obligations, speculative connections
presented as established, or preserving familiar wording instead of useful
insight.

**Stop when:** the alternative's preservation and losses are explicit, or the
source obligations cannot be reconstructed. Do not adopt a replacement merely
because this operation produced it.

Adapted from Field Lab's structural recombinator and position-preservation assay.