Evaluating Rules and Shortcuts
Last updated 10/7/2026
This reference helps you decide what can be said about a rule. It does not assume that an old rule is correct, that a modern teaching convention is classical authority, or that one successful-looking case proves anything.
The governing distinction is between evidence type and disposition. A rule may be accurately attributed yet excluded from this course. Another may be a useful UAYA workflow without belonging to the received tradition.
Build a doctrine-disposition card
| Field | Required entry |
|---|---|
| Exact claim | One sentence narrow enough to test |
| Evidence type | Direct observation, primary/classical source, responsible secondary source, attributed lineage, or UAYA course convention |
| Locator | Public text, edition, chapter/passage, responsible scholarship, attributed lineage, or named UAYA course statement |
| Scope | Subject, state, school, conditions, and exceptions actually covered |
| Comparison | A commensurable artifact that supports, contradicts, or limits the claim |
| Disposition | retain, narrow, attribute, contradicted, unresolved, or exclude |
| Permitted course wording | The strongest sentence the evidence permits |
If the evidence type is unresolved, stop: the course does not teach the claim as fact.
Dispositions are not interchangeable
The locator and artifact support the exact claim being taught.
Name the source, lineage, UAYA course convention, or condition instead of presenting it as universal.
Record the two commensurable artifacts and the precise point of contradiction.
A missing locator, ambiguous wording, or incompatible layer prevents the course from teaching the claim as fact.
A claim can be excluded without claiming it has been historically disproved.
Three evaluation exercises
1. UAYA teaching convention
Claim: “This course’s high/medium/low labels describe evidence quality.”
- evidence type: UAYA course convention;
- locator: the complete rubric in Confidence and Uncertainty;
- permitted wording: “In this course, the label describes the completeness and agreement of the evidence record”;
- excluded wording: “The classical tradition gives this event a measured probability.”
2. Unsupported claim of consensus
Claim: “Every named authority uses the same Dark Moving boundary.”
One located source cannot establish what every authority teaches. Unless a commensurable public comparison covers the authorities named in the claim, disposition is unresolved; exclude the universal wording. A narrower source-attributed sentence may still be retained.
3. Attractive shortcut without locator
Claim: “A decorative sign can override target selection and calendar state.”
If no public source and stated rule scope support that override, record the claim as unresolved and set disposition exclude. Do not call absence from one book a historical refutation.
Common reasoning failures
- A bibliography entry is not a claim-level locator.
- A complete UAYA worksheet can establish what this course asks the learner to do; it cannot prove historical origin or predictive efficacy.
- A source-recorded outcome is part of the record, not validation of the rule used to explain it.
- A modern teaching worksheet remains a UAYA course convention, even when it organizes older terms.
- A rule that is outside the current page job can be routed or excluded without being declared false.
- High-stakes use cannot be rescued by tradition, confidence, or a disclaimer.
Stop condition
Stop at unresolved when the exact claim, locator, scope, or comparison cannot be filled. Stop at exclude when the proposed use would cross a safety or authority boundary. Do not make “refuted” the default label for material you simply cannot support.
Source boundary: the doctrine-disposition card is explicit UAYA teaching design. Received-rule examples require public claim-level locators; course conventions must be completely stated in the lessons where readers use them.