Why a decision sometimes says "cannot be decided yet"

LEAT gives three answers to "may this person do this", not two. This
page is about the third one.

The three answers

1. Permitted. There is a valid chain from the person to the permission, and every condition passes.
2. Refused. A rule says no: a prohibition, a conflict, a separation rule, an expiry.
3. Cannot be decided. Something needed is missing, out of date, ambiguous or contradictory.

Why the third one exists

Because "we do not know" and "no" send you to different places.

A refusal names a rule. You can read it, disagree with it, and appeal it
to whoever owns it.

An unknown names a missing fact. Nobody is refusing you; there is
something to go and get, and until somebody gets it nobody can tell.

If those two were the same answer, an outage in another system would
look exactly like a governance decision, and somebody would appeal
against a rule that never fired.

It fails closed

An unknown answer does not let the action through. It stops it, and it
says why it stopped rather than pretending to have decided.

What usually causes one

• Nobody has been appointed to the office the act needs.
• Two governing instruments both cover the point and nobody has said which wins.
• Another system did not answer in time.
• A document the decision depends on cannot be found in custody.
• The authority cache is behind a change made moments ago, and the check refuses to use it.