Advanced Techniques

6.1 Cross-Cutting Concerns

Problem: Some legal concepts (like appeals) apply across multiple processes.

Example: Appeals can be made against:

• Registration refusal (Art 33)

• Required Steps Notice (Art 33)

• Deregistration decision (Art 33)

• Name change refusal (Art 33)

Solution - Generic appeal mechanism:

DECLARE AppealableDecision IS ONE OF
    RegistrationRefusal HAS reasons IS A LIST OF STRING
    RequiredStepsNotice HAS steps IS A LIST OF STRING
    DeregistrationDecision HAS grounds IS A LIST OF STRING
    NameChangeRefusal HAS reasons IS A LIST OF STRING

§ `Universal Appeal Right (Art 33)`
GIVEN decision IS AN AppealableDecision
GIVETH A PROVISION Actor Action  
`appeal process` MEANS
  PARTY AffectedParty
  MAY AppealDecision OF decision
  WITHIN 28 days OF `decision notice served`
  HENCE `appeal proceeds to tribunal`
  LEST `appeal time expired`

6.2 Multi-Instrument Integration

Real example - Annual Return Requirements:

Combines requirements from 4 different instruments:

• Art 13(7)-(10) Law 2014: Basic obligation

• Core Info Regs 2018: Financial data requirements

• Additional Info Order 2018: Governor payment details

• Timing Order 2019: Deadline specifications

L4 integration approach:

Step 1: Define the complex data structure outside the PROVISION:

-- Define integrated financial data structure first
integratedFinancialData MEANS IntegratedFinancialData WITH
         coreFinancialInfo IS TRUE,      -- Core Info Regs 2018
         governorPayments IS TRUE,       -- Additional Info Order 2018
         publicBenefitNarrative IS TRUE  -- Additional Info Order 2018

Step 2: Reference it in the CONTRACT rule:

§ `Integrated Annual Return (4 instruments)`
GIVETH A PROVISION Actor Action
`comprehensive annual return` MEANS
  PARTY RegisteredCharity
  MUST FileReturn OF integratedFinancialData
  WITHIN 2 months OF `financial year end`  -- Timing Order 2019
  HENCE `full transparency achieved`        -- Purpose of Art 13 Law 2014
  LEST `lateFlag set + Required Steps Notice enabled`

Key insight: Keep PROVISION actions simple by pre-defining complex objects rather than constructing them inline.

6.2a CONTRACT Syntax Best Practices

Critical Rule: Avoid complex object construction within PROVISION rules.

❌ Problematic (causes syntax errors):

PARTY applicant
MUST ProvideApplication OF ApplicationContents WITH
       constitution IS applicant's constitution,
       purposes IS applicant's purposes,
       coreFinancialInfo IS CoreFinancialInfo WITH
         income IS Money OF 0 "GBP",
         expenditure IS Money OF 0 "GBP"

✅ Correct approach - Use helper functions:

-- Define helper function outside PROVISION
GIVEN applicant IS A RegisterEntry
GIVETH AN ApplicationContents
DECIDE `build application contents` IS
  ApplicationContents WITH
    constitution IS applicant's constitution,
    purposes IS applicant's purposes,
    coreFinancialInfo IS CoreFinancialInfo WITH
      income IS Money OF 0 "GBP",
      expenditure IS Money OF 0 "GBP"

-- Use simple reference in CONTRACT
PARTY applicant
MUST ProvideApplication OF `build application contents` applicant

✅ Alternative - Pre-define examples:

-- Define complete example outside CONTRACT
exampleApplication MEANS ApplicationContents WITH
    constitution IS standardConstitution,
    purposes IS LIST `advancement of education`,
    coreFinancialInfo IS standardFinancials

-- Reference directly in CONTRACT
PARTY applicant
MUST ProvideApplication OF exampleApplication

Why this matters:

• Syntax requirements: L4 parser expects simple expressions in PROVISION actions

• Readability: Complex object construction clutters the legal logic

• Maintainability: Helper functions can be reused across multiple PROVISION rules

• Testing: Pre-defined objects are easier to validate and test

Pattern for actions with structured data:

1. Define the structure using DECLARE

2. Create helper functions or examples using DECIDE or MEANS

3. Use simple references in PROVISION rules

4. Keep legal logic clean and focus on the process flow

6.3 Advanced Simulations

Multi-party scenario with error handling:

#TRACE `Complex Misconduct Scenario` charity Commissioner governor tribunal AT 1 WITH
  -- Discovery phase
  PARTY Commissioner DOES `discover potential misconduct` governor AT 10
  PARTY Commissioner DOES `investigate allegations` AT 20
  
  -- Decision phase  
  PARTY Commissioner DOES SuspendGovernor OF governor, "mismanagement", (Date OF 2024, 12, 31) AT 30
  
  -- Charity response (may fail)
  PARTY charity DOES `attempt to ignore suspension` AT 40  -- Error condition
  PARTY Commissioner DOES `detect non-compliance by charity` AT 50
  
  -- Escalation
  PARTY Commissioner DOES IssueNotice OF requiredSteps AT 60
  PARTY charity DOES `comply with required steps` AT 70
  
  -- Appeal
  PARTY governor DOES AppealDecision OF suspensionOrder AT 80
  PARTY tribunal DOES `hear appeal and vary order` AT 120
  
  -- Resolution
  PARTY Commissioner DOES VaryOrder OF originalSuspension, newConditions AT 130

Performance considerations for large schemes:

-- Efficient register lookups
ASSUME `charity by registration number` IS A FUNCTION FROM STRING TO MAYBE RegisteredCharity
ASSUME `active governors for charity` IS A FUNCTION FROM STRING TO LIST OF Person

-- Bulk operations for large datasets
DECLARE BulkAction IS ONE OF
    BulkAnnualReturnReminder HAS charities IS A LIST OF STRING
    BulkComplianceCheck HAS cutoffDate IS A Date

Success Check: You can now handle cross-cutting legal concerns, integrate multiple legal instruments, and create sophisticated simulations with error handling and performance considerations.