On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Arguments:
> - CFJ 3532 ("Assets with multiple backing documents can't exist")
> - R2166 states "An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule", however,
> this is in itself a definition of what an asset is - it is an entity defined
> as such by a rule. So R2166 is a backing document.Arguments: You're missing the second part - "existing solely because its backing document defines its existence". That's the reason assets can't have multiple backing documents: an asset can't exist 'solely because of' each of two different things. But in general, rule-defined assets would probably continue to exist (at least in some form) even if Rule 2166 were repealed and left "asset" undefined; thus, Rule 2166 doesn't satisfy the condition.
