Chains may walk a named path pattern (#371)

docs/project-memory.md

@@ -340,6 +340,20 @@ question no single document holds — *what line of work is this a step in* —
 and renders the sequences on one page. A cycle, or a comparison held on one
 side only, becomes a finding rather than a page that quietly omits it.
 
+Some lines run through documents of another kind: an argument goes claim →
+inference → claim, and no single field says which claim follows from which.
+A **path pattern** names that relation, in Cypher's pattern syntax, and a
+chain walks it wherever it would walk a field:
+
+```yaml
+patterns:
+  follows_from: (b:CLAIM)<-[:concludes]-(i:INF)<-[:premise_of]-(a:CLAIM)
+```
+
+Labels are schemes and edge types are reference fields, checked when the
+config loads, and the page names what each step went *through*
+([ADR-tmpfdvjo](../record/decisions.d/ADR-tmpfdvjo.md), `examples/argument-map`).
+
 **Tag rules.** A vocabulary says what a value *means*; a group says which of
 them may appear together, because some fields are an axis rather than a pile.
 The group is declared under the field it constrains:

examples/README.md

@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ that turned out to conflate *committed* with *hand-maintained*.
 | [`knowledge-base/`](knowledge-base/) | a record of *domain* content rather than project meta-documentation: two schemes that cite each other and carry separate statuses, with required fields and a one-primary-category rule |
 | [`world-bible/`](world-bible/) | a story bible: scenes that `follow` several scenes (a plural reference) and belong to world trajectories drawn from a closed vocabulary with a default — a field that is neither a reference, a tag nor a status |
 | [`constitution/`](constitution/) | a record with no code in it at all: an AI assistant's operating instructions decomposed into values, practices and boundaries, where **precedence is a checked reference** (`BOUNDARY.overrides → PRACTICE`) rather than escalating emphasis, and a practice is retired by a boundary from another scheme |
+| [`argument-map/`](argument-map/) | an argument as a record: claims, the inferences drawn between them, and objections — lines of argument walked as **named path patterns** through the inference documents, with an uncontested view that drops challenged steps |
 
 To run one by hand:
 

examples/argument-map/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Argument map
+
+An argument kept as a record, and the shape that needed path patterns.
+
+**Three kinds of document.** A *claim* states something. An *inference*
+draws one claim from others: its `premises` name the claims it starts from,
+and `concludes` names the claim it reaches. An *objection* `challenges` a
+claim or an inference.
+
+**No field says which claim follows from which.** That fact takes two
+fields on two documents: `premise_of` on the premise and `concludes` on the
+inference. A chain over either field alone stops at the inference. So the
+line is declared as a named path pattern, and the chain walks that:
+
+```yaml
+patterns:
+  follows_from: (b:CLAIM)<-[:concludes]-(i:INF)<-[:premise_of]-(a:CLAIM)
+```
+
+It reads like the field it stands in for: the first node is the step and
+the last is the claim it builds on, so a conclusion nests under its
+premises. `i` is named, so each step on the page says which inference it
+went through.
+
+**Two views of one argument.** [Lines of argument](docs/argument.md) walks
+every step. [Uncontested lines](docs/uncontested.md) walks `stands_on`, the
+same pattern with `WHERE NOT (i)<-[:challenges]-(:OBJ)`. It drops the step
+from the 2025 inspection to "the repair can wait", because [OBJ-001](record/objections.d/OBJ-001.md)
+challenges it.
+
+**An unfinished step draws nothing.** [INF-004](record/inferences.d/INF-004.md) has a premise and no
+conclusion yet, so it is not a step on either page. What counts as
+unfinished depends on what this record requires, so luria does not guess.
+The record can say it as a pattern of its own:
+
+```yaml
+unfinished: (i:INF)<-[:premise_of]-(:CLAIM) WHERE NOT (i)-[:concludes]->(:CLAIM)
+```
+
+Rendering such a pattern as a list of its matches is luria's
+[issue 373](https://github.com/dmarx/luria/issues/373).
+
+```
+LURIA_ROOT=$PWD luria index
+LURIA_ROOT=$PWD luria lint
+```

examples/argument-map/luria.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+# examples/argument-map/luria.yaml
+#
+# An argument kept as a record: claims, the inferences that draw one claim
+# from others, and objections to either. No single field says which claim
+# follows from which — that takes two, `premise_of` on a claim and
+# `concludes` on an inference — so the lines of argument are walked as
+# named path patterns (#371).
+issue_url: https://github.com/acme/bridge/issues/{n}
+vocabularies:
+  statuses:
+    Active:
+      blurb: held — the record stands behind it
+    Proposed:
+      blurb: put forward and not yet settled
+    Withdrawn:
+      blurb: no longer held; kept so what cited it still resolves
+schemes:
+  CLAIM:
+    dir: record/claims.d
+    output: docs/claims
+    render: index
+    fields:
+      status: {vocabulary: statuses}
+    references:
+      premise_of:
+        scheme: INF
+        many: true
+        required: false
+        converse: premises
+  INF:
+    dir: record/inferences.d
+    output: docs/inferences
+    render: index
+    fields:
+      status: {vocabulary: statuses}
+    references:
+      premises:
+        scheme: CLAIM
+        many: true
+        required: false
+        converse: premise_of
+      concludes:
+        scheme: CLAIM
+        required: false
+  OBJ:
+    dir: record/objections.d
+    output: docs/objections
+    render: index
+    fields:
+      status: {vocabulary: statuses}
+    references:
+      # An objection may challenge a claim or the step drawn from it.
+      challenges:
+        scheme: [CLAIM, INF]
+        many: true
+        required: true
+patterns:
+  # Read like the field it stands in for: the first node is the step, the
+  # last the claim it builds on — so a conclusion nests under its premises.
+  # `i` is named, so the page says which inference each step went through.
+  follows_from: (b:CLAIM)<-[:concludes]-(i:INF)<-[:premise_of]-(a:CLAIM)
+  stands_on:
+    match: >-
+      (b:CLAIM)<-[:concludes]-(i:INF)<-[:premise_of]-(a:CLAIM)
+      WHERE NOT (i)<-[:challenges]-(:OBJ)
+    blurb: A step no objection challenges.
+chains:
+  argument:
+    scheme: CLAIM
+    relation: follows_from
+    output: docs/argument.md
+    title: Lines of argument
+    blurb: Every step, challenged or not.
+  uncontested:
+    scheme: CLAIM
+    relation: stands_on
+    output: docs/uncontested.md
+    title: Uncontested lines
+    blurb: Only the steps no objection challenges.
+site:
+  title: Argument map

examples/argument-map/record/claims.d/CLAIM-001.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+status: Active
+title: 'Traffic on the bridge has doubled since 2020'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-01'
+premise_of:
+- INF-001
+---
+
+# CLAIM-001: Traffic on the bridge has doubled since 2020
+
+The council's counts: 9,000 crossings a day in 2020, 18,500 in 2026.

examples/argument-map/record/claims.d/CLAIM-002.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+status: Active
+title: 'The load rating has not changed'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-01'
+premise_of:
+- INF-001
+---
+
+# CLAIM-002: The load rating has not changed
+
+The deck was rated in 1998 and has not been re-rated since.

examples/argument-map/record/claims.d/CLAIM-003.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+status: Active
+title: 'The bridge now carries loads near its rating'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-02'
+premise_of:
+- INF-002
+---
+
+# CLAIM-003: The bridge now carries loads near its rating
+
+Drawn from the first two claims by [INF-001](../inferences.d/INF-001.md).

examples/argument-map/record/claims.d/CLAIM-004.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+status: Active
+title: 'Freeze–thaw accelerates damage to a heavily loaded deck'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-02'
+premise_of:
+- INF-002
+---
+
+# CLAIM-004: Freeze–thaw accelerates damage to a heavily loaded deck
+
+Water in existing cracks expands, and a deck near its rating has more of them.

examples/argument-map/record/claims.d/CLAIM-005.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+---
+status: Active
+title: 'The bridge should be repaired before winter'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-03'
+premise_of:
+- INF-004
+---
+
+# CLAIM-005: The bridge should be repaired before winter
+
+The conclusion this record exists to support. [INF-004](../inferences.d/INF-004.md), which would price
+the repair, has premises and no conclusion yet, so it draws no step on
+either page.

examples/argument-map/record/claims.d/CLAIM-006.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+---
+status: Proposed
+title: 'The repair can wait until spring'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-04'
+---
+
+# CLAIM-006: The repair can wait until spring
+
+The rival conclusion, drawn by [INF-003](../inferences.d/INF-003.md) and challenged by [OBJ-001](../objections.d/OBJ-001.md).

examples/argument-map/record/claims.d/CLAIM-007.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+status: Active
+title: 'The last inspection found no cracking'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-04'
+premise_of:
+- INF-003
+---
+
+# CLAIM-007: The last inspection found no cracking
+
+The 2025 inspection report, section 4.

examples/argument-map/record/inferences.d/INF-001.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+---
+status: Active
+title: 'Twice the traffic on the same rating'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-02'
+premises:
+- CLAIM-001
+- CLAIM-002
+concludes: CLAIM-003
+---
+
+# INF-001: Twice the traffic on the same rating
+
+If the load has doubled and the rating has not moved, the margin has shrunk.

examples/argument-map/record/inferences.d/INF-002.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+status: Active
+title: 'A loaded deck will not survive a winter unrepaired'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-03'
+premises:
+- CLAIM-003
+- CLAIM-004
+concludes: CLAIM-005
+---
+
+# INF-002: A loaded deck will not survive a winter unrepaired
+
+Together the premises say the damage a winter does is damage this deck
+cannot absorb.

examples/argument-map/record/inferences.d/INF-003.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+status: Proposed
+title: 'No cracking, so no urgency'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-04'
+premises:
+- CLAIM-007
+concludes: CLAIM-006
+---
+
+# INF-003: No cracking, so no urgency
+
+Damage needs somewhere to start, and an uncracked deck gives it nowhere.

examples/argument-map/record/inferences.d/INF-004.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+status: Proposed
+title: 'What the repair should cost'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-05'
+premises:
+- CLAIM-005
+---
+
+# INF-004: What the repair should cost
+
+Unfinished: the premises are in and the conclusion is not. A partial match
+is no step, so neither page draws one until it names its conclusion.

examples/argument-map/record/objections.d/OBJ-001.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+---
+status: Active
+title: 'The inspection predates the traffic increase'
+version: 1
+date: '2026-09-05'
+challenges:
+- INF-003
+---
+
+# OBJ-001: The inspection predates the traffic increase
+
+The 2025 inspection measured a deck carrying 2023 traffic. An absence of
+cracks then says little about the deck now, so the step from [CLAIM-007](../claims.d/CLAIM-007.md) to
+[CLAIM-006](../claims.d/CLAIM-006.md) does not hold, and the uncontested page leaves it out.