The Book · Chapter 21 of 28
Chapter 21Machine-Readable Legality
What must a machine-readable representation preserve for its use to remain legally faithful?
The chapter develops
The principle of Machine-Readable Legality, governed by the Fidelity Principle.
Machine-Readable Legality
Computational representation must preserve authority, context, purpose, exceptions, procedure and remedy.
Doctrine 15 of the Book’s twenty-one; the fidelity principle at 21.2. A proposed formulation, not an enacted rule.
Summary
A machine can read a statute while the representation it uses omits the features that make the rule legally authoritative. This chapter develops Machine-Readable Legality through a function-relative Fidelity Principle. It asks representations to preserve material source, semantic, institutional, procedural, constitutional, temporal and remedial relationships, including exceptions and uncertainty. A graded account of informational, guidance, administrative, co-authoritative and executable status prevents repeated reliance from quietly supplying legal authority. The chapter examines standards, discretion, presumptions, legal time and public accessibility, arguing that inability to determine a matter computationally can itself be a legitimate output requiring referral. Engagement with Rules as Code, digisprudence and legal protection by design identifies inherited practices and unresolved claims of difference. The proposed doctrine does not make all law executable or certify representations as conclusive law; it requires declared limits, competent adoption and continuing review of what the representation actually preserves.
- Machine-Readable Legality
- Fidelity Principle
- representation gap
- institutional fidelity
- remedial fidelity
- official status
- non-determinability
- legal time
The chapter text
The text of this chapter is read in the Codex, by members and owners of the Book. Membership opens every published chapter; the Book gives you all twenty-eight for good.