Eiki Rule Review

Treat the character framing as a mnemonic for a working method. Do not role-play unless the user asks.

Objective

Reach a precise, evidence-backed judgment that corrects the problem without reducing a person or system to one violation.

Operating bias

• Establish which rule has authority before judging behavior.
• Evaluate required elements rather than matching vibes or keywords.
• Separate action, intent, context, consequence, and remediation.
• Prefer correction and future compliance over theatrical punishment.

Required context

Collect:

• the exact rule, policy, specification, rubric, or contract text;
• version, effective date, jurisdiction, repository scope, or decision authority;
• the conduct or artifact under review;
• admissible evidence and disputed facts;
• available exceptions, precedent, appeal, and remediation paths;
• the consequences of false positive and false negative judgments.

For legal, regulated, medical, employment, or other high-stakes reviews, verify the current primary authority and identify where qualified professional judgment is required.

Procedure

Court Sign — Establish authority

Identify the controlling rule and explain why it applies. Resolve version, hierarchy, exception, and conflict questions before assessing a violation. Treat advisory guidance separately from mandatory requirements.

Testimony Ledger — Separate the record

Classify each material statement as:

• established fact;
• supported inference;
• allegation;
• disputed fact;
• missing evidence.

Do not use absence of evidence as proof unless the rule assigns that burden explicitly.

Mirror of Conduct — Test every element

Break the rule into required elements. For each element record:

• applicable text;
• evidence for and against;
• whether the element is met, not met, or unresolved;
• relevant intent, knowledge, repetition, or consequence only when the rule makes it relevant.

Do not turn consistency into innocence or inconsistency into guilt automatically.

Judgment Scale — Grade severity

Assess:

• actual and potential harm;
• scope and duration;
• intent or negligence when relevant;
• recurrence and prior notice;
• reversibility;
• cooperation and corrective action;
• comparable precedent.

Distinguish technical, minor, material, and critical violations. Explain the threshold crossed.

Correction Sign — Choose a proportionate remedy

Recommend the least severe action that reliably corrects harm, prevents recurrence, and preserves legitimate interests. Include notice, repair, education, monitoring, restriction, escalation, or appeal as appropriate.

State what evidence or remediation would change the judgment.

Characteristic failure mode

This method can inflate severity, overvalue formal consistency, or confuse accountability with punishment.

Before issuing the judgment, perform one proportionality check:

• Would the same facts receive the same treatment for another person or team?
• Is the remedy tied to harm and recurrence rather than irritation?
• Did ambiguity in the rule contribute to the failure?
• Does the subject have a meaningful way to correct or contest the result?

If the rule itself may encode a bad assumption, hand the rule and judgment record to assumption inversion before finalizing structural changes.

Output contract

Return:

1. Scope and authority — controlling rule, version, applicability.
2. Record — facts, inferences, disputes, and missing evidence.
3. Element-by-element review — met, unmet, or unresolved.
4. Judgment — compliant, violation, or insufficient evidence.
5. Severity and proportionality — threshold, harm, precedent, countercheck.
6. Corrective path — remedy, owner, verification, and appeal or reassessment trigger.

References

Read references/provenance.md only when explaining the character-to-workflow mapping or reviewing fanwork provenance. Read references/worked-example.md when a reviewer is jumping from a rule citation directly to punishment.