Compare the rule with concrete cases
Fictional readiness has four distinct checks A,B,C,D. The original rule needs at least three passes. A draft saying “three checks pass” could be read as exactly three, wrongly rejecting four. Each check contributes at most one pass.
| Passed checks | Pass count | At least three | Exactly three |
|---|---|---|---|
| A,B | 2 | No | No |
| A,B,C | 3 | Yes | Yes |
| A,B,C,D | 4 | Yes | No |
Work through the distinction
The three-pass boundary cannot distinguish the interpretations. Four passes is the essential contrasting case. Repeating evidence for A does not create a fifth distinct check.
All four checks pass. Does the original rule allow readiness?
Show the worked answer
Yes. Four is at least three. An exact-three interpretation would be wrong for the supplied requirement.
Acceptance wording to adapt
Count passing identities among A,B,C,D once each. Set ready=true for counts 3 or 4, and false for 0,1 or 2. Additional copies of a check’s evidence must not increase the count.