A candidate rebooking rule
A service cancels an appointment. A scheduling team must offer a new date within five working days. The rule does not apply when the person has already asked to close the case, and the service records the version of the rule and the date of the offer.
One possible written shape is:
when appointment is cancelled
then scheduling team offers a new date within 5 working days
unless the person asked to close the case
record the rule version and offer date
This is discussion material, not approved CoreLang syntax. It gives domain specialists something concrete to question: does cancelled have one agreed meaning, when does the period of five working days start, and who records the offer date?
Test more than the successful case
The worked example should contain:
- a valid rule and the business meaning the tools should record.
- an incomplete rule with no responsible team.
- an ambiguous rule that does not say when the deadline starts.
- an invalid rule with an unknown case state.
- the error message and source location expected for each problem.
These cases test whether the language helps a reader find a mistake rather than merely whether a parser accepts the text.
Add execution only after the meaning is agreed
If the rule is selected for execution, a test should supply a cancellation date, case state and rule version and compare the result with a stated expected offer date. It should also show what happens when required information is missing.
That test can later run through the proposed RXAS path. The generated code is not the primary result: the important check is that execution preserves the business meaning reviewed in the source example.