Currently the defeasibility system concludes that a statement is plainly true if it is held by any section. That's not correct. All legal conclusions are defeasible.
What we actually need is a system where if the green block is being used in an "ask" context, it is checking for holds(any,...), and if the green block is being used in a "tell" context, there is always an attribution (either an attributed rule block, or a user fact, or an according to).
Right now sections that reach conclusions about opposite predicates, if they both hold, will create a logical contradiction, which can be avoided by forcing sections of the rule to reach different conclusions, and using override statements that do not rely on the conclusions being opposite.
Currently the defeasibility system concludes that a statement is plainly true if it is held by any section. That's not correct. All legal conclusions are defeasible.
What we actually need is a system where if the green block is being used in an "ask" context, it is checking for holds(any,...), and if the green block is being used in a "tell" context, there is always an attribution (either an attributed rule block, or a user fact, or an according to).
Right now sections that reach conclusions about opposite predicates, if they both hold, will create a logical contradiction, which can be avoided by forcing sections of the rule to reach different conclusions, and using override statements that do not rely on the conclusions being opposite.