Adequate Justification
On this page
Summary
An adequate justification is a person-directed justification available to a particular holder for conduct that leaves that holder's claim unsatisfied. It is a standard of justification, not a grant of permission by the holder. It requires neither prior authorization nor eventual acceptance, and it can never settle the account in the holder's name. The theory's articulation fixes its own vocabulary but confers no practical jurisdiction; each condition has only the warrant supplied by its stated premises and inferences, as represented by its register.
The module supplies content to the framework's demand that conduct be justifiable to each affected party. A justification must address the actual claim, preserve the holder as a party, cite claims rather than totals or appetites, survive comparison, and remain open in form. On the proposed criterial role of these conditions, an act is justified only if an adequate justification is available for every claim it leaves unsatisfied.
Failure to establish a top option or top set cannot supply comparative vindication — and there the burden tells. A claim that clears the relevance band and is left unsatisfied by a selection made after that failure is presumptively a wronging, because no answer to its holder was produced; the presumption is defeasible and governs residue while it stands. An affirmative co-best set certified under a rule its interested party did not declare is different: it is a positive complete output, but the framework has not established whether membership supplies holder-relative comparative vindication or whether global top-option or top-set membership is necessary for it. Where that question is decisive, it remains genuinely open whether the affected unsatisfied claim is a justified override or a wronging; no fourth claim status is created. If the eligible set is nonempty and every member nevertheless contains an established wronging, Necessity governs operational selection. Neither urgency nor selection settles the open classification, and neither closes the presumptive one.
Availability is distinct from delivery. For a discrete act, later refusal to perform the owed account is a new wrong and evidence against availability, not automatic retroactive defeat of the act's justification. In a continuing arrangement, effective contest can be part of ongoing adequacy; capacity restricted to token changes fails, while partial remedial materiality and residual durability remain open.
Standard, not grant
The critique of tacit, hypothetical, retroactive, and manufactured consent defeats counterfeit grants. It does not show that every act lacking authorization is unjustified. A standard can govern conduct where no holder performed a grant, provided the standard does not present itself as the holder's exercise or eventual acquittal.
Adequacy therefore changes the status of conduct, not the holder's jurisdiction. It can show why an unsatisfied claim was justifiably overridden. It cannot create consent, release, forgiveness, or settlement.
Conditions
A justification J for option X is adequate to affected party P only if all five conditions hold. Conditions 1 and 5 govern how J meets P; 2 and 3, what X may be toward P and what J may cite against P's claim; 4, how X compares.
1. Keyed
J engages P's claim at its actual content: the burden as P bears it, across the relevant dimensions of P's good, ordering, and cumulative position. A generic role occupant or an aggregate into which P has been folded is not the addressee.
2. Party-preserving
X, toward P, lacks the three-mark structure of possession. This condition is derived given possession's defended address argument. A reader who rejects that argument can instead treat possession as the framework's gravest burden, but loses its categorical ineligibility.
3. Claim-grounded
What J cites against P's claim must be claims of identifiable someones. Provision claims qualify where their holder, ground, and content have been established. A claimless total, institutional appetite, preference as such, prestige, or growth as such does not.
Refusing this condition admits those considerations as candidate justificatory reasons. It does not make them sufficient: the surviving comparative condition still requires a separately warranted governing comparison rule to establish comparative vindication.
An unresolved Stage 1 ground occupies neither office. It cannot be cited against P as though it were an established claim, and its nonestablishment cannot be cited as proof that the consideration is claimless. Adequacy may be assessed conditionally in each admissible ground-status branch. A separately warranted uncertainty rule may govern conduct while the ground remains unresolved, but it does not make the candidate relation a claim; an unconditional justification based on the branch analysis is available only where adequacy holds across the branches relevant to the act. If establishment of the ground would leave another holder's claim unsatisfied without an adequate answer, the current record establishes neither justification nor wronging on that relation. The branch-specific classification and its effect on act-level justification remain visible rather than being erased by the uncertainty or by the act being taken.
4. Comparatively vindicated
The complete Stage 4 output under Comparison Discipline must be considered in assessing whether option X is comparatively vindicated to affected party P, with P's claim entered at full content and gravity. A merely pairwise result cannot by itself establish holder-relative comparative vindication. A uniquely best output can support vindication only to the extent warranted by the governing comparison rule. Failure to establish a top option or top set cannot supply vindication.
Membership in an affirmative co-best set does not yet settle the condition: whether it is sufficient for holder-relative comparative vindication remains open. Whether global top-option or top-set membership is necessary also remains open. If X and Y treat P identically while Y is globally preferred solely because it better satisfies another holder Q's claim, the framework neither declares X vindicated to P nor forecloses that possibility before a holder-indexed bridge is supplied. No lower-ranked option is thereby declared vindicated.
Where the complete Stage 4 output establishes no top option or top set, or establishes one only under a rule declared by a party whose costs fall if it ranks that way, this condition parts ways with the open cases above. A selection made after that failure — by foreclosure-minimization, fair procedure, or the interested rule itself — supplies no comparative vindication, and the framework says so. For a claim that clears the relevance band against what prevailed, the absence of any established vindication does not leave the classification suspended. The claim is presumptively a wronging: the party who left it unsatisfied has produced no answer to its holder, and the burden of that answer is theirs, not the holder's burden to show they were wronged. The presumption is defeasible and governs the residue owed while it stands; a comparative vindication later established, or availability shown despite non-delivery, discharges it, without retroactively converting the interim account into settlement.
This burden and Stage 1's rule are consecutive rather than competing. Stage 1 fixes whether a claim exists at all, and its unresolved record is a statement about the evidence, not a finding against either party. The presumption operates only downstream of it: it requires an established claim that cleared the band and was left unsatisfied by the addressee's own conduct. The burden falls on that party because an adequate justification is an address, and the speaker of an address is fixed by whose conduct requires the answer rather than assigned by a rule about who bears evidential risk. A party not yet shown to stand in any directed relation is not the speaker of an address, which is why Stage 1 asks no one for one.
The address argument fixes who owes the answer; it does not by itself fix that the unanswered claim is owed as a wronging. Classifying it a wronging risks over-charging a party whose conduct was in fact justifiable; classifying it an override risks under-answering a holder who was in fact wronged. The framework does not settle that choice by weighing the two errors. It rests on an asymmetry that holds before either error is known: the party who left the claim unsatisfied has already imposed an unanswered burden, and the holder has already borne it. Where one party has imposed and the other has borne, the one who imposed carries the risk that an answer was available. This premise is proposed. A reader who holds that the two errors must be weighed symmetrically refuses it, and keeps who owes the answer while losing the violation grade: the claim returns to the open classification the positive-top case already has.
The presumption reaches only that case. It does not touch a claim left unsatisfied by a positively established top result — a uniquely best option under its governing rule, or a certified affirmative co-best set — where the holder-relative bridge above is the genuinely open question and the classification remains open while the account and its answerability duties are owed. A top from a rule declared by a party whose costs fall if it ranks that way is not positively established against the claims it leaves unsatisfied (proposed): the bar that Comparison Discipline sets on frames reaches the ranking rule too, because ranking on top an option that leaves a claim unsatisfied reduces what the declarer owes exactly as silencing the claim would. Nor does the presumption reach a claim silenced below the band: under a qualified frame the gravity gap is itself the answer to that holder, and the claim is a justified override. Silencing by dominance needs no frame: the gap on every gravity factor is itself that answer.
5. Open in form
J acknowledges P's claim as unsatisfied, contains no claim that the matter is thereby settled for P, and does not depend on concealment. A justification that works only while hidden from the party it purports to answer fails as an address.
Within the directed domain, and on the same proposed criterial role, an act is justified if, for every claim it leaves unsatisfied, an adequate justification is available to that claim's holder. One further condition is proposed for one class of act: an optional origination must also meet the origination warrant requirement, even where it leaves no claim unsatisfied. Sufficiency for justified action without that restriction holds only with the optional completeness module. Satisfaction needs no override; wronging occurs where a claim is left unsatisfied and no adequate justification is available. The burden of that availability lies with the party who leaves the claim unsatisfied. Where no comparison result vindicates the claim, availability is not presumed in that party's favour: as condition 4 states, a band-clearing claim left by a no-top selection is presumptively a wronging until an adequate justification is positively established.
A reasons-admission battery
Case: A transit authority leaves P's established accessibility claim unsatisfied in three variants. In the first, it diverts the accessible vehicle to a prestige event whose only asserted benefits are publicity and increased aggregate enjoyment. In the second, it diverts the vehicle to evacuate Q, whose independently established provision claim cannot otherwise be met in time. In the third, the authority invokes a relation that could be directed to Q but remains live as a candidate new ground rather than established.
Verdict: The first justification fails the claim-grounded condition; the asserted benefits are claimless considerations on the current description. Q's established claim is admissible in the second variant but is not sufficient by admission alone: the justification must still be keyed to P, party-preserving, comparatively vindicated, and open in form. The third variant is neither an admitted claim nor a defeated claimless reason. Its ground-status branches remain visible, and no unconditional adequacy verdict follows merely from calling the relation plausible.
Machinery: Claim-grounded adequacy distinguishes an identifiable holder's established claim from prestige, appetite, and a favorable total. The Stage 4 claimless-consideration filter applies that condition without supplying a comparison rule. Stage 1 prevents a live unresolved relation from being forced into either side of the distinction.
Cost: Refusing claim-grounded adequacy admits impersonal and institutional considerations as candidate reasons, but still leaves the need for a governing comparison rule. Retaining it can withhold a justification even where an impersonal theory would regard the first variant's total benefit as decisive; the battery records that as refusal of a proposed criterion rather than as an internal derivation binding the rival.
A co-best allocation
Case: A clinic has one indivisible treatment. P and Q hold same-order claims, and a separately warranted comparison rule, declared by a body with no stake in the allocation, certifies the two options, treating P and treating Q, as an affirmative co-best set. Each option leaves one claim unsatisfied. In a second comparison, options X and Y leave P's claim unsatisfied to exactly the same degree, but Y alone also satisfies Q and is therefore globally preferred to X.
Verdict: In the first comparison, valid co-best membership does not yet establish that the option failing P is comparatively vindicated to P; P's claim-level classification remains open between justified override and wronging. In the second, X's global inferiority does not by itself establish that X lacks comparative vindication to P, because X and Y treat P identically. The framework has not supplied either the sufficiency or the necessity bridge. These open classifications create no fourth claim status and do not select a clinical allocation procedure.
Machinery: The co-best-set validity discipline distinguishes an affirmative complete top set from failure to rank. The comparative condition of adequacy requires a holder-relative answer whose relation to co-best membership and global rank remains open. The duties under unresolved comparison require the gap and its source to be stated rather than converted into permission, wronging, or an unstated selector.
Cost: The framework withholds override and wronging classifications in cases where a complete global comparison still lacks a holder-indexed bridge. This preserves the distinction between set-level ranking and person-directed justification at the cost of leaving allocation and downstream forced-set analysis incomplete on those facts.
A spillway with no declared frame
Case: A regional water authority must open exactly one of two spillways to keep a dam from failing within the hour. Opening North destroys the Aro cooperative's only fishing grounds; opening South ends the riverside trade the town of Delt depends on. Both losses are grave and clear any plausible relevance band. Neither loss dominates the other. The authority has declared no gravity frame ranking a fishing livelihood against a market economy, no body independent of it has declared one, and no comparison rule establishes either option as superior. It opens North by fair lot.
Verdict: Aro's unsatisfied claim is presumptively a wronging. It cleared the band, no top option or top set was established, and the fair-lot selection supplied no comparative vindication; the burden of that missing answer lies with the authority, so the claim is classified a wronging until an adequate justification is positively established, and Aro is owed violation-grade residue. The verdict turns on the absence of a qualified frame and a positive top, not on ranking the two losses. Had the authority itself declared, in advance and contestably, a frame placing a fishing livelihood below the town's trade, it could not silence Aro's claim: the frame would reduce what its declarer owes, and the declarer is barred. Had a body bearing none of the authority's residue declared that frame in advance and contestably, Aro's claim would be silenced — a justified override, not a wronging. Had a comparison rule declared by such a body instead established South above North, or a certified co-best set, Aro's classification would remain open pending the holder-relative bridge; a rule the authority declared itself would establish no top against Aro, for the same reason it could not silence Aro's claim.
Machinery: Condition 4 supplies the presumption for the no-top case. Comparison Discipline silences only by dominance or under a frame declared by a qualified declarer; neither loss dominates and no qualified frame exists, which is why silencing is unavailable here. Unresolved comparison governs the fair-lot selection, which vindicates nothing.
Cost: The presumption fixes the classification without ranking the two losses. It does not tell the authority which spillway to open, and it does not resolve the vindication bridge a positive top would raise. It shifts the burden onto the party who leaves a claim unanswered — at the accepted cost that an authority establishing no vindication owes more, not less.
Availability and the account
Availability is distinct from delivery. It follows from the two definitions: adequacy is a property of a justification available to the holder, and the account is the performance of answerability, a form rather than a ground, so neither status settles the other. A justification can be available before it is spoken, while account duties govern conduct, records, explanation, acknowledgment, and contest.
For a discrete past act, later refusal to give the account is a new wrong. It does not retroactively change a justified act into an unjustified one, but sustained refusal supports an inference that no adequate justification existed and shifts the evidential burden.
For a continuing arrangement, contest and account can be part of ongoing adequacy. An arrangement whose burden was justified partly by effective contest ceases to satisfy that justification during periods in which contest is foreclosed.
Whether observed alteration is material and durable enough to keep contest effective invokes the remaining effective-contest margins. A route whose capacity necessarily leaves the established burden intact fails, but partial capacity and durability beyond the remedy's proper scope remain open. Evidence that an objection was heard or that some outcome changed does not by itself settle ongoing adequacy.
In an emergency, performance may be deferred where the necessity is genuine. Deferral is not excuse: it must be as short as the necessity, and the record and account remain owed afterward.
Judgment without a tribunal
Adequacy is independent of the actor's self-certification and of the addressee's acceptance. Self-certification would let the answerable party conclusively determine whether the standard was met; acceptance as a veto would make every burden impossible and would invite manufactured endorsement.
The addressee nevertheless has evidential priority on whether the justification is keyed to their claim. Their contest shifts the burden until the claim is answered through a route the justifier does not control. A holder's valid exercises remain constitutive: they change claim content within their scope rather than merely supplying evidence to the adequacy judgment.
No tribunal is made infallible by assessing these conditions. Adequacy is a property of a justification; institutional findings about it remain contestable.
Judgment discipline
Rules stated across the corpus answer one question: who may settle a decisive input, and on what evidence. Most share a form. A party whose costs, authority, or preferred outcome turn on the input may supply evidence but may not make its own reading conclusive, and the input stays contestable through a route that party does not control. This section gathers them with links and states no rule of its own; each keeps the support given where it is defined.
| Decisive input | Who may not settle it, and what stays open | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a justification is adequate | neither the actor's self-certification nor the addressee's acceptance; on whether it is keyed to the addressee's claim, the addressee's contest shifts the burden until the claim is answered through a route the justifier does not control | Judgment without a tribunal |
| A claim's classification after a no-top selection | the burden lies with the party who left the claim unsatisfied: a band-clearing claim is presumptively a wronging until an adequate justification is positively established | Condition 4 |
| A description of the good of a holder who cannot contest it | a party whose costs fall if it is described one way may not certify it (a proposed bar); the description stays open to review through a route the describer does not control | Proxy discipline |
| The reading of a performed exercise its holder cannot contest | a party whose costs, authority, or preferred outcome turn on the reading may supply evidence but may not make it conclusive (proposed) | Interpretation under constraint |
| Whether a route is practically available or a contest effective | a party whose purpose the classification protects may supply evidence but may not make its own evidence conclusive (proposed) | Evidence under controlled routes |
| Whether faster exit is infeasible | the finding may not be certified by the parties benefiting from continuation | Audit and recurrence |
| An animal's good, where an enterprise's costs turn on it | a keeper, veterinarian, buyer, or institution whose costs fall under one description may provide evidence and care but may not certify it (proposed) | Representation |
| Whether a constraint continues | it must stay contestable through a route the constrainer does not control and, where the party cannot challenge, through an empowered substitute channel keyed to the party's good | Answerable constraint |
| A necessity finding behind an order | a node benefiting from the finding may not certify it alone (proposed) | Contestable necessity |
| Whether an account was given | it must stand exposed to a route capable of changing conduct, interpretation, or remedy; an audience its author controls is not that route | Contest |
| Where the relevance band falls | outside a fixed dominance test, a party whose costs fall if the frame places a claim one way may not declare it; the frame is declared in advance, publicly, and contestably, and stays reviewable through a route the declarer does not control; without a qualified frame the claim stays relevant (proposed) | Relevance and silencing |
Articulation without jurisdiction
The framework distinguishes semantic fixing, argumentative warrant, and practical jurisdiction. Authorship fixes how this corpus uses adequate justification. Stated premises and valid inferences, at their registered strengths, support or fail to support the five conditions. Neither semantic fixing nor argumentative success gives the author, a reader, or an institution authority to bind the parties whose claims the standard describes.
Stating a normative standard does not by itself create a claim, grant, release, adjudicative finality, or enforcement authority. Nor can assertion, acceptance, administration, or circulation promote a condition beyond the warrant supplied by its premises and inferences. A holder's valid performed exercise can change claims within its scope; acceptance does not make a general standard true or waive another party's claims.
No special authorization is therefore required merely to offer a candidate articulation. What remains required is visible premises, accurate registers, exposure to refusal and defeat, and correction where defeat occurs. If circulation creates a holding relation, or if an institution uses the standard to classify, bind, adjudicate, or coerce, the separate requirements of practical availability and effective contest, standing answerability, and enforcement govern that exercise of power. Correctness does not confer jurisdiction.
The separation of articulation from grant, settlement, adjudication, and enforcement follows from the framework's existing distinctions. Treating that separation as removing an additional standard-making grantor is a defended clarification, not a derivation of the conditions or a general metaethics.
Limits
- The comparative condition inherits comparison's defended counting rule, proposed relevance band, unresolved open cell, and proposed co-best-set validity discipline. The holder-relative effect of an affirmative co-best output and the necessity of global top membership remain open.
- A live unresolved ground supplies neither a justificatory claim nor a claimless reason. The framework does not provide a general uncertainty rule that turns its nonestablishment into permission.
- The party-preserving condition carries the defended status of possession's address argument.
- Articulation supplies neither truth nor practical authority. Whether the criteria are correct remains an ordinary question of argument and evidence rather than a special need for a standard-making grantor.
- An adequate justification does not erase the differentiated residue generated by an unsatisfied claim.