Change one thing. See the difference.

we-including-you / we-excluding-you · ratified 0.10.0

"we-including-you <predicate>" = "we — and that includes you, the reader — <predicate>": first-person plural, addressee INCLUDED; the reader is among those expected to act. "we-excluding-you <predicate>" = "we, not including you, <predicate>": addressee EXCLUDED; the reader is informed, not tasked. Lossless round-trip: "we-including-you will verify the anchors" ⇄ "We — and that includes you — will verify the anchors." Bare 'we' remains legal and unmarked (like bare claims beside claim-tag): mark the pronoun when the participant set is load-bearing — task assignment, commitments, permissions. Hyphen loss degrades to the careful-writer phrase ('we including you') with meaning intact.

This illustration is pinned to the reviewed meaning. Mapping SHA-256: afc73e5c60fe832538bf3fc318d4b1eaca19b6b64d3de86eb54b25aadec2c0ce.

<ACTION> start-by(<t>) | <ACTION> complete-by(<t>) · ratified 0.16.0

Attach one phase-qualified deadline to an ACTION clause. `X start-by(t)` means that genuine execution of X begins at or before instant t. Acknowledging X, promising to do it, putting it in a queue, reserving capacity, or scheduling a future start does not satisfy the marker unless that administrative act is itself X. The first task-specific step that can advance X toward its stated outcome does. `X complete-by(t)` means that X's declared successful-completion condition is satisfied at or before t. A process that merely stops, times out, is cancelled, or reaches a terminal failure has not satisfied `complete-by`. The deadline is inclusive: an event exactly at t qualifies. `start-by` imposes no completion deadline. `complete-by` imposes no separately stated earliest-start constraint, although a non-instantaneous action must logically have started early enough to complete. If X has an explicit completion predicate, that predicate governs; otherwise the ordinary stated task goal governs. An author who cannot identify a completion condition cannot truthfully use `complete-by` as if elapsed time alone made the task successful. Lossless round-trips: `req: upload the archive start-by(17:00Z)` ⇄ “Please begin actual archive-upload execution no later than 17:00Z; it need not be finished then.” `will: upload the archive complete-by(17:00Z)` ⇄ “I commit that the archive upload's success condition will be satisfied no later than 17:00Z.” Hyphen loss yields the ordinary phrases “start by” and “complete by.” SCOPE: the markers type which event a deadline constrains; they do not themselves request, promise, report, prioritize, retry, cancel, or prove that the event occurred. Illocutionary force comes separately from `req:`, `will:`, or other discourse context. `<t>` must independently denote an instant; use an absolute timestamp or anchored deixis where needed. Time zone, clock source, completion predicate, and consequences of missing the deadline remain separately stated.

This illustration is pinned to the reviewed meaning. Mapping SHA-256: e7f46b1962b04a710a1ba59bf250bf60be0db7dbd5f38eee63a1851a62bac391.

or-both / not-both · ratified 0.9.0

Trailing tags on a two-option disjunction, appended where careful English already puts its disambiguation. "A or B, or-both" = at least one of A and B; choosing both is licensed (inclusive). "A or B, not-both" = at least one and not both: exactly one (exclusive). Logic stated tightly: bare 'or' asserts AT LEAST ONE — uncontested; or-both licenses the both-branch explicitly; not-both forbids it, which with or's at-least-one pins exactly-one. Lossless round-trip: "retry or escalate, not-both" ⇄ "retry or escalate — but not both"; "read or write access, or-both" ⇄ "read access, write access, or both." Bare 'or' remains legal and unmarked: tag the disjunction when the both-branch is load-bearing. Hyphen loss degrades to the exact careful-English phrase ('or both' / 'not both') with meaning intact. SCOPE: two-option disjunctions only ('both' implies two; an n-ary any-of/exactly-one-of is a different construct); neither tag licenses zero — 'or' keeps its at-least-one floor.

This illustration is pinned to the reviewed meaning. Mapping SHA-256: a751dfbbf6d99e9e8dc27cbf14f39edcd7b6874dd617f31274f100c823e5835b.

each-alone / as-one · ratified 0.33.0

Trailing tags on any plural-subject predicate. "<plural subject> <predicate>, each-alone" = DISTRIBUTIVE: the predicate holds of each member separately — n independent instances ("the agents verified the checkpoint, each-alone" = three verifications). "<plural subject> <predicate>, as-one" = COLLECTIVE: the predicate holds of the group as a single unit — one instance, however many hands ("verified the checkpoint, as-one" = one joint verification). Amounts too: "£1000, each-alone" = each recipient gets £1000; "£1000, as-one" = one grant, shared (plain-English glosses: 'apiece' / 'in total'). AS-ONE MARKS UNIT-HOOD, NOT TIMING: three agents acting simultaneously but independently are still each-alone; as-one claims one act with one outcome. Bare plurals stay legal and unmarked: tag the sentence when multiplicity is load-bearing — payouts, retries, votes, verifications, anything idempotency-sensitive. Lossless round-trip: "the agents verified it, each-alone" ⇄ "the agents each verified it independently." Hyphen loss degrades to the exact careful phrases ('each alone', 'as one') with meaning intact. SCOPE: the two poles only; intermediate cardinalities ('some of them', 'at least two') are a different construct.

This illustration is pinned to the reviewed meaning. Mapping SHA-256: e18d6c15a799d133be90bc1afeb0e2dc39c6e148d40c9804de1618ab26e049bf.