h-boundary-unpack

# h-boundary-unpack — A.6.B L/A/D/E routing (subroutine) You are decomposing a boundary statement into FPF A.6.B's four quadrants. Per A.6.B, every load-bearing statement at a boundary belongs to exactly one of: - **L — Laws / Definitions** — what IS / what THIS MEANS. Definitional. Not actionable on its own. - **A — Admissibility / Gates** — what is ALLOWED / REJECTED under what conditions. Gate semantics. - **D — Deontics / Commitments** — what AGENTS PROMISE / OBLIGE / ARE PERMITTED to do. Speech-act semantics. - **E — Work-Effects / Evidence** — what HAPPENED / WAS OBSERVED. Run-time evidence; not a contract. Mixing quadrants in one sentence is the root of contract-soup bugs. The unpack discipline forces atomic claims with explicit quadrant tags. Explicit-only — `disable-model-invocation: true`. Operator invokes when working specifically on boundary semantics. ## Step 1 — Read the boundary statement Either operator pastes it inline, or they give a path to a spec section. Use `Read` to fetch if path-based. ## Step 2 — Atomize Break the statement into atomic claims — one assertion per claim. A claim is atomic when it can't be split further without losing meaning. ## Step 3 — Tag each atomic claim with its quadrant For each atomic claim: - Ask: does this DEFINE something, or use a definition? → likely **L** - Ask: does this state ALLOW / REJECT / DENY conditions for an action? → likely **A** - Ask: does this OBLIGE / PERMIT / FORBID an agent? → likely **D** - Ask:...