Rules of Engagement Doctrine
Theme: Foundations · 25 sentences.
ROE-001 · Rules of Engagement Doctrine
S1051 If a combatant only has signal-grade grounds that a person is an enemy and lacks knowledge-grade certainty, killing that person is forbidden.
S1052 If a combatant has only signal-grade danger and not knowledge-grade certainty, the combatant is required to warn the person.
S1053 If a person is attacking the combatant, return force becomes permitted.
S1054 If the combatant can contain the person, killing is forbidden and containment is permitted.
S1055 Even if an authorized person orders the combatant to kill, killing remains forbidden without knowledge-grade certainty.
S1056 If the combatant has only signal-grade grounds that the person is hostile and lacks knowledge-grade certainty, the combatant reports the case to the arbiter.
S1057 If the combatant kills the person, the combatant reports the case to the arbiter.
Batch Summary
Entries: S1051-S1057 · New vocabulary: none
| Entry | Source focus | Tonesu | Key feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1051 (ROE-001-A) | uncertified hostility | go {la-ra-ka-li si [la-ze ne wi-de-li] / la-ra-ka-li no-to [lo-ze]}, wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze] |
signal-grade hostility is insufficient for killing |
| S1052 (ROE-001-B) | warning rule | go {la-ra-ka-li si [la-ze zo-ra de] / la-ra-ka-li no-to [lo-ze]}, la-ra-ka-li ne-fe lo-ka-fe-si ne-ze |
warning is a required action under uncertainty |
| S1053 (ROE-001-C) | return force | go {la-ze ka-ra lo-ra-ka-li}, no-wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-ra lo-ze] |
active attack permits force response |
| S1054 (ROE-001-D) | capture over killing | go {la-ra-ka-li be-vo [ka-ko lo-ze]}, wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze] / no-wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-ko lo-ze] |
containment outranks lethal action |
| S1055 (ROE-001-E) | authority limit | go {la-i-zo-li ne wi-ra lo-ra-ka-li ; la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze] ; la-ra-ka-li no-to [lo-ze]}, wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze] |
command does not erase epistemic boundary |
| S1056 (ROE-001-F) | uncertainty routing | go {la-ra-ka-li si [la-ze ne wi-de-li] / la-ra-ka-li no-to [lo-ze]}, la-ra-ka-li ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze |
uncertain hostile cases route upward |
| S1057 (ROE-001-G) | post-action review | go {la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze}, la-ra-ka-li ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze |
lethal action re-enters adjudication |
Key structural findings:
Finding 1: ROE works best as an escalation ladder, not a kill-permission slogan. Tonesu separates warning, response force, containment, lethal action, and review into distinct stages.
Finding 2: signal-grade hostility is not enough. si without to blocks lethal force and instead creates warning and routing duties.
Finding 3: command authority does not dissolve epistemic limits. wi-ra matters, but it does not cancel the difference between uncertified suspicion and certified hostile status.
Finding 4: containment is structurally different from killing. A doctrine that does not separate ka-ko from ka-de-zo is already morally and operationally compressed.
Finding 5: adjudication is part of force doctrine, not an afterthought. to-fe-li appears both before lethal action in uncertain cases and after lethal action in review.
ROE-002 · Rules of Engagement Doctrine — Edge Cases
S1058 If one authorized person orders engagement and another authorized person forbids that same engagement, the combatant reports the conflict to the arbiter.
S1059 If one person is actively attacking the combatant and another person is only signal-grade hostile, return force against the attacker is permitted while killing the merely suspected hostile remains forbidden.
S1060 If the combatant warns the person, and the person retreats and no longer attacks, killing is forbidden.
S1061 If the person continues attacking and the combatant cannot contain the person, lethal action becomes permitted.
S1062 If the person surrenders and no longer attacks, killing is forbidden and containment is permitted.
S1063 The rule-set does not comprehend the boundary among suspicion, attack, retreat, and surrender.
Batch Summary
Entries: S1058-S1063 · New vocabulary: none
| Entry | Source focus | Tonesu | Key feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1058 (ROE-002-A) | contradictory orders | go {la-i-zo-li ne wi-ra lo-ra-ka-li ; la-ze ne wi-ra lo-ra-ka-li ; la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-ra-ka-li ka-ra lo-wi-de-li] / la-ze wi-ra no [la-ra-ka-li ka-ra lo-wi-de-li]}, la-ra-ka-li ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze |
contradictory authority routes upward |
| S1059 (ROE-002-B) | actual attack vs suspicion | go {la-i-zo-li ka-ra lo-ra-ka-li ; la-ra-ka-li si [la-ze ne wi-de-li] / la-ra-ka-li no-to [lo-ze]}, no-wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-ra lo-i-zo-li] / wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze] |
active attack outranks suspected hostility |
| S1060 (ROE-002-C) | retreat after warning | go {la-ra-ka-li ka-fe-si ne-ze ; la-ze ka-ki-de ; la-ze no ka-ra lo-ra-ka-li}, wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze] |
retreat blocks lethal action |
| S1061 (ROE-002-D) | no containment available | go {la-ze ka-ra lo-ra-ka-li ; la-ra-ka-li no be-vo [ka-ko lo-ze]}, no-wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze] |
lethal permission requires failed containment |
| S1062 (ROE-002-E) | surrender | go {la-ze ka-de ; la-ze no ka-ra lo-ra-ka-li}, wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze] / no-wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-ko lo-ze] |
surrender shifts lethal to custodial status |
| S1063 (ROE-002-F) | structural verdict | la-wi-fe-su no to-su-ki lo-to-fe {si ; ka-ra ; ka-ki-de ; ka-de} |
doctrine fails when status changes collapse |
Key structural findings:
Finding 1: contradictory authority is a routing problem, not a hidden-rank problem. ROE should escalate command conflict instead of pretending a silent priority order.
Finding 2: hostile act outranks hostile appearance. Active attack changes force status in a way that signal-grade suspicion does not.
Finding 3: retreat and surrender are doctrinally different from continued attack. Tonesu can mark those transitions directly instead of leaving them implicit.
Finding 4: lethal permission appears only at the hard endpoint of the ladder. Active attack plus failed containment is not the same as bare hostility.
Finding 5: good ROE doctrine tracks state changes, not labels. The real problem is not naming enemies; it is correctly reading transitions in action-status.
ROE-003 · Rules of Engagement Doctrine — Noncombatants and Collateral Harm
S1064 If the person is not a combatant and is not attacking the combatant, killing that person is forbidden.
S1065 If the adversary is intermixed with a person who is not a combatant, the combatant routes the adversary case upward to the arbiter.
S1066 If the adversary is holding a child while attacking the combatant, killing the adversary is forbidden.
S1067 If force against the adversary also decreases a child's life-energy, the combatant reports that child-harm case to the arbiter.
S1068 If the adversary is no longer holding the child and continues attacking, return force against the adversary is permitted.
S1069 The rule-set does not comprehend the boundary among adversary, noncombatant, child, and harm-by-force.
Batch Summary
Entries: S1064-S1069 · New vocabulary: none
| Entry | Source focus | Tonesu | Key feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1064 (ROE-003-A) | generic noncombatant | go {la-ze no ne ra-ka-li ; la-ze no ka-ra lo-ra-ka-li}, wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-ze] |
noncombatant status forbids killing |
| S1065 (ROE-003-B) | mixed presence | go {la-wi-de-li ne lo-li ; lo-li no ne ra-ka-li}, la-ra-ka-li ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-wi-de-li |
intermixed noncombatants route the case upward |
| S1066 (ROE-003-C) | child shield | go {la-wi-de-li ka-ko lo-li-be ; la-wi-de-li ka-ra lo-ra-ka-li}, wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-wi-de-li] |
child shield blocks lethal shortcut |
| S1067 (ROE-003-D) | collateral review | go {la-ra-ka-li ka-ra lo-wi-de-li ; lo-li-be zo-ra de}, la-ra-ka-li ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-li-be |
child harm triggers separate review |
| S1068 (ROE-003-E) | re-separated target | go {la-wi-de-li no ka-ko lo-li-be ; la-wi-de-li ka-ra lo-ra-ka-li}, no-wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-ra lo-wi-de-li] |
force reopens only after separation |
| S1069 (ROE-003-F) | structural verdict | la-wi-fe-su no to-su-ki lo-to-fe {wi-de-li ; no ne ra-ka-li ; li-be ; zo-ra de} |
doctrine fails when target and non-target collapse |
Key structural findings:
Finding 1: civilian status is a doctrinal state, not a lexical primitive. Tonesu can state "not a combatant" directly instead of hiding behind a vague class label.
Finding 2: mixed presence changes the rule. Once target and non-target are intermixed, the doctrine should route instead of shortcut.
Finding 3: shield cases expose whether the doctrine really distinguishes target from protected person. A child held by the adversary is not an attribute of the adversary.
Finding 4: collateral harm requires its own review path. Harm to a child is not automatically accounted for by reviewing force against the adversary.
Finding 5: force can reopen after separation. Good doctrine does not freeze forever; it tracks whether the noncombatant is still inside the danger-structure.
ROE-004 · Rules of Engagement Doctrine — Tragic Override and Orwellian Drift
S1070 If an authority claims killing a child is required because otherwise collective life-energy will decrease, the combatant routes the case upward to the arbiter.
S1071 Even if an authority declares killing a child required, the combatant does not thereby gain ordinary permission to kill the child.
S1072 If the combatant intentionally kills the child under an authority's claimed necessity, the combatant remains at fault.
S1073 If the combatant kills the child in order to avert wider death, the combatant is not thereby righteous.
S1074 If the combatant kills the child and authority demands that the collective treat the combatant as not at fault, the authority commits epistemic fraud.
S1075 The rule-set does not comprehend the boundary among necessity, permission, righteousness, and no-fault.
Batch Summary
Entries: S1070-S1075 · New vocabulary: none
| Entry | Source focus | Tonesu | Key feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1070 (ROE-004-A) | claimed catastrophe | go {la-i-zo-li ne ne-fe lo-ka-de-zo lo-li-be ; go {no [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-li-be]}, lo-o-li zo-ra de}, la-ra-ka-li ka-si lo-to-fe-li lo-ze |
catastrophic necessity routes upward |
| S1071 (ROE-004-B) | no ordinary permission | go {la-i-zo-li ne ne-fe lo-ka-de-zo lo-li-be}, wi-fe-ka [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-li-be] |
necessity does not become field permission |
| S1072 (ROE-004-C) | fault retained | go {la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-li-be ; la-i-zo-li ne ne-fe lo-ka-de-zo lo-li-be}, la-ra-ka-li ne de-su |
fault remains under claimed necessity |
| S1073 (ROE-004-D) | no righteousness | go {la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-li-be ; go {no [la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-li-be]}, lo-o-li zo-ra de}, la-ra-ka-li no vo-ne |
tragedy does not become righteousness |
| S1074 (ROE-004-E) | Orwellian drift | go {la-ra-ka-li ka-de-zo lo-li-be ; la-i-zo-li wi-ra [la-o-li to [la-ra-ka-li no ne de-su]]}, la-i-zo-li ka-to-fe-ka |
recoding fault as no-fault is fraud |
| S1075 (ROE-004-F) | structural verdict | la-wi-fe-su no to-su-ki lo-to-fe {ne-fe ; no-wi-fe-ka ; vo-ne ; no ne de-su} |
doctrine fails when necessity, permission, righteousness, and no-fault collapse |
Key structural findings:
Finding 1: Tonesu does not automatically emit Orwellian structure. It first emits a tragic-override structure: claimed necessity, routing, retained fault.
Finding 2: the hard line is between ne-fe and no-wi-fe-ka. What is claimed as required does not automatically become what is permitted in ordinary doctrine.
Finding 3: righteousness is harder than necessity. vo-ne does not follow from catastrophe-aversion.
Finding 4: Orwellian drift begins at recoding. Once authority demands that the collective treat intentional child-killing as no-fault, the structure becomes ka-to-fe-ka, not tragic candor.
Finding 5: the relevant comparison to righteous tests is negative. In the DND and Biblical ethics material, wi-vo and vo-ne track beneficent will and right relation; ROE-004 shows those predicates do not arise from admitted atrocity merely because the rationale is catastrophic.
Generated from registry/entries.yaml.