# When a rule can be read two ways, which example settles it?

Executable Clarifications: Reference implementation. Published 27 Oct 2026. Question: Where does judgment sit?
Scope: 1 authored rule · 2 readings · 48 finite inputs
Page: https://jasonlovell.ai/work/executable-clarifications
Code: https://github.com/jlov7/executable-clarifications-release

Turns competing readings of a pure rule into the boundary example that separates them, a recorded choice and an exported regression test.

## Demonstrated

In the worked example, two readings of “within 30 days” differ on 16 of 48 finite inputs, and the two ordinary examples miss both edits.

## In practice

Ambiguity hides at boundaries. Ask about the case where the readings differ, not the ordinary one.

## What I built

A disagreement matrix across candidate rules, deletion-minimal conflicts, and the chosen reading exported as a machine-readable test, with a Python CLI and a local browser workspace.

## Where the evidence stops

Human usefulness, productivity and live-model evaluation have not been run. The worked example is authored. It follows ClarifyGPT as a predecessor and is not a replication.

---
By Jason Lovell. Independent work, separate from my role at PwC. I build everything here myself, end to end, with Claude Code and Codex. I write the question and the test first, read the runs, and keep the results that go against me.