Model checking is not code compliance
A model checker can establish that a declared condition holds in its input. Whether that condition captures an applicable legal requirement is a separate question.
How to use this idea
Maha proposes three separate outcomes: information present, arithmetic or logical condition satisfied, and professional determination outstanding. A missing jurisdiction or unresolved interpretation prevents a compliance conclusion even when the arithmetic works. This page intentionally implements no jurisdiction-specific code rules.
Worked illustration
A floor schedule contains a positive area for every floor. The checker passes completeness. It has not checked exit travel, occupant load or accessible routes, and must not display a building-compliant badge.
All numerical examples here are synthetic, not measured building results.
Checks before relying on a result
- Name the exact rule being executed.
- Return unknown for missing applicability inputs.
- Retain the responsible reviewer and rule revision for any later determination.
What this does not establish
Educational information checks are not permits, legal advice or life-safety analysis.
Sources and review
Automated editorial preparation, not independent expert review. Examples and proposed workflows are Maha-authored.
This page presents an authored protocol or elementary arithmetic, not a sourced engineering finding or professional standard.