Not yet bound

Can I buy a decaf version of this same coffee?

ALS-COFFEE-1.3-DECAF-004

The engine can run this kind of check and a public product page can settle it — but THIS standard has not yet written the binding or put the entry through its adversarial pass. The obstacle is unwritten work in this document, not the evidence and not the engine. Each one names the engine capability that fits.

Why this is not yet bound

No engine ReqKind fits: this entry adjudicates a statement about a DIFFERENT product from the one under test — whether a decaf counterpart exists elsewhere in the catalogue — and every kind the engine exports reads the product in front of it. No binding and no adversarial pass have been authored for this entry in this standard, so it is not `executable`; the obstacle is unwritten work in this document, not the evidence and not the engine. Because no kind fits, this one needs an engine-gap proposal rather than a binding invented here.

Assertion

decaf_option option_available true

Applicability

applies when
the seller offers caffeine choice as an option on this product
signal
undecidable_from_public_data

Accepted evidence

  • product_options — a purchasable option value naming the decaffeinated state

Explicitly insufficient evidence

What does not count, and why. Published because the omission is where a check quietly becomes a claim.

  • a separate decaf product elsewhere in the catalogue
    A different product is not an option on this one, and this assertion can only see the offers attached to the page under test.
  • "decaf available" in prose
    An availability statement is not a selectable option, and a buyer cannot complete the purchase from it.
  • the word decaf in a collection handle or tag
    Merchant-controlled naming is assertion by labelling rather than evidence, and the engine deliberately never reads tags for category signals.

Conflict rules

  • When decaf is sold as a separate product — then this entry fails and that failure is not a defect, which is precisely why the row is published rather than run

Discrimination

Authored expectation: no prediction, confidence low. The numeric band this standard used to carry is not published at this grammar version.

Decaf is almost always a separate product rather than an option on a caffeinated one, because it is a different green lot processed at a different facility. A row failing for nearly everyone is the cruelty-free failure exactly: not false, but irrelevant, identical across unrelated merchants, and enough to make a specific diagnosis read like a template. Published so a reader can see it was considered and rejected on that ground.

The numeric fail-rate band this reasoning was authored with is NOT carried at grammar 1.2 and is not reproduced here. Authored bands held 1 of 10 against this category's own sample and every miss was HIGH, so a direction derived from the band would inherit the error that condemned it (SCHEMA.md §9.3 step 3). The band survives in ALS-COFFEE v1.1 (standard_hash f8ec2780f60c38931913e5b6cd37506500c8462709209de7180ba6691d6137e7), which is byte-frozen and still served.

For a shopper

Decaf is normally a separate coffee rather than a switch on the one you are looking at, because the caffeine is removed from green beans at a specialist facility before roasting. If you want decaf, search for it as its own product.

For a merchant

No remediation is implied. If you do offer the same lot in both states, exposing that as an option helps a buyer, but structuring decaf as a separate product is normal and correct.

Grounding

  • Coffee Intelligence, specialty coffee trade publication (trade_press)
    that decaffeination happens at a small number of specialist facilities on green coffee before roasting, and that US decaf consumption rose from nine to twelve per cent of the market in a year, so demand for decaf is real while it is structurally a separate product