Practice and verification

A five-step reading exercise

1. Identify every object, class, property and variable in the family example.
2. Predict a new child binding before running the modified file.
3. Explain Sarah’s ancestor relationship through the two supporting edges.
4. Contrast p2’s review status in the open and selectively closed examples.
5. Explain why an old approval does not authorize the current mission revision.

Discussion notes

A shared variable joins facts about the same identifier. Multiple values produce separate bindings, not assignment. Recursion propagates consequences through a finite graph. Unknown is not false; closure is a completeness commitment. Permission is about the current state, not the existence of any earlier approval. These are the conceptual checks to master before connecting a language model.

Reproduce the executable checks

python3 scripts/check-examples.py --binary /path/to/framex

Run this from the FrameX-Doc repository after installing the engine and Python package. The checker verifies tutorial query rows and expectations, the complete family program, the namespace and external-request examples, the extraction receipt scenarios, and the Python exercise outputs. It also runs the tool-query episode and scripted dialogue without a model.

For the schema lesson, experiment with framex validate on a saved copy as described in Lesson 6. The new grounded extraction example includes downloadable receipts for valid evidence, refused evidence and a failed call.