Each concept is read twice: whether the approach carries it, and whether the approach's own sources claim it. A concept that is absent and was never claimed is a gap in the field rather than a failure of the work, and is marked out of scope.
Plural normative orders
PartialClaimed · partialDefinition · John Griffiths, What Is Legal Pluralism? (1986)
Several bodies of norms operate at once within one social field — not one official system plus exceptions, but multiple living systems of rules side by side, each generating its own decisions.
Analysis
Different juries genuinely return different verdicts, and the architecture is built so that a group's judgment comes from that group's own annotators rather than from a pooled majority, so several standards really are in force at once. But an order in Griffiths's sense generates its own decisions through its own institutions. These groups are strata inside one training set, sharing one architecture, one label space and one operator. They differ in what they would say, not in how they decide, and none of them decides anything on its own.
Interlegality
PartialClaimed · partialDefinition · Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Toward a New Legal Common Sense (2002)
The orders do not just sit in parallel — they interpenetrate. People live at their intersections, subject to several at once; the boundaries themselves are porous.
Analysis
Because a jury is a mixture of groups in stated proportions, a case is judged by several standards at once and the verdict is what falls out of their meeting, which is more than a router that picks one order and discards the rest: there is a representation here for a case sitting at the intersection of two standards. But Santos's point is that people live at those intersections and the boundaries themselves are porous. Each annotator is assigned a single group identity, so it is the panel that sits at the intersection and never the person, and the interpenetration is arithmetic: the influences are polled and combined in one output rather than the orders reshaping one another.
Choice of forum
PartialClaimed · partialDefinition · Conflict-of-laws practice
With several lineages of decisions in force, a stated rule must route each new case to one of them. Otherwise parties simply shop for the forum that favors them — which is this regime's predicted failure.
Analysis
There is an allocation and it is explicit, which is more than a learned allocator offers: the jury is declared, so anyone can read afterwards which panel judged a case. What is missing is everything that makes a choice-of-forum rule bind. It is set by the deploying party, revisable at will, stated for no one in advance, and the parties to the case can neither invoke it nor contest it. A selection one side makes afresh each time is forum shopping, not the answer to it.