In my arbitration clause, I want to ask the user whether there should be discovery limitations and if there are, provide some options to include language for a couple of different types of limitations.
In my current automation platform, it is possible to nest conditions (“business rules”). In other words, my outside business role would be a true false about whether they were discovery limitations, and Inside there would be choices for the types of discovery limitations.
In Clausebase, I don’t see a way to nest conditions. Thus, I had to use “and” logic as follows:
In my current automation platform, due to the tight relationship between the “template” and the “questionnaire,” if a dependent question is not computed as being logically relevant as the questionnaire is being used, the non-relevant dependent questions automatically are not shown.
In this example, if the user had answered “false” for discovery limitations, then in my current platform, the other questions simply don’t get asked. The platform computes relevance.
I am noticing that in Clausebase, when I “batch create” cards in the Q&A, the logic implicit in the document is not automatically picked up and conditions automatically added to a card; I have to add the logical relationships by manually placing conditions in the Q&A, as below – even though it’s already implicit in the document. Am I correct?