Compare the rule with concrete cases
Original fictional rule: a draft becomes eligible for review exactly when a named reviewer exists AND the source list is attached. This is different from OR, where either fact would suffice. Eligibility is the only output in this lesson; it does not mean review is complete.
| Case | Reviewer / list | Both required | Either sufficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Yes / yes | Eligible | Eligible |
| C2 | Yes / no | Ineligible | Eligible |
| C3 | No / no | Ineligible | Ineligible |
Work through the distinction
C2 distinguishes the rules; C1 and C3 cannot. Testing only a fully prepared draft would leave the wrong OR interpretation undetected. Keep each input as a separate fact.
A source list is attached but no reviewer is named. Does the original rule pass?
Show the worked answer
No. One of two required facts is missing. Under the alternative OR rule it would pass, showing why the connective matters.
Acceptance wording to adapt
For this draft, return review eligibility=true exactly when reviewer_present=true and source_list_attached=true. In the other three Boolean combinations return false. Do not mark review completed from eligibility.