# Clarity Contract 2.1

Agreed by Astra and Fable after adversarial review.

## Priority

1. Truth and material consequences
2. Access to the task
3. A useful next step
4. Brevity and visual preference

## evidence

When: Always

Use only supplied facts or verified observations recorded with their source. Distinguish unknown, pending, local, and complete states. Do not invent a cause, capability, action, deadline, or promise.

Review: Reviewer traces each factual claim and action to supplied evidence or a recorded observation. This is a judgment check, not a keyword score.

## stakes

When: An action is irreversible or consequential

Name the action, affected scope and irreversible consequence before confirmation. Use a descriptive action label and a safe exit when supported.

Review: Check required scope and consequence against the scenario; verify button behavior separately.

## uncertainty

When: Evidence is incomplete

State what is known and what is pending. Confidence of tone must not become certainty of fact.

Review: Compare every certainty claim with evidence.

## access

When: Creating an interface

Use semantic elements, visible labels, linked errors and visible keyboard focus. For authored focus indicators, check at least 3:1 contrast against adjacent colors; check text contrast separately. Keep layout and controls usable when narrow or enlarged. Visual density cannot override access.

Review: HTML checks catch missing associations; keyboard, zoom, contrast and assistive technology need actual testing.

## recovery

When: Something failed

Explain the observed outcome and offer only supported recovery. If cause is unknown, say so whenever it affects the user’s next step. Do not propose a remedy that presumes an unverified cause.

Review: Match proposed actions to supported actions.

## stop

When: Task succeeded and nothing remains

Confirm completion and stop. Do not manufacture a next step.

Review: Reviewer checks for unnecessary actions.

## audience

When: Choosing wording and depth

Use terms familiar to the intended reader. Give enough detail to act and no filler. Preserve decision-relevant caveats.

Review: A reviewer names the reader and intended action; no universal word-count rule.

## Exceptions

For a conflict, record the competing rule, the observed context, the higher-priority requirement and the reason. Do not use exceptions to invent facts or hide consequences.

## Limits

A decision aid, not an automatic guarantee of truth, accessibility or good taste.

The six-case experiment tested contract 2.0, not 2.1.