Definitions of business rules: Is an action assertion a statement about the static structure of the organization, rather than about events and permitted actions?

Introduction / Context:
Business rules are often grouped into structural assertions (static facts that must always be true), action assertions (constraints tied to events and operations), and derivations (computed facts). This question distinguishes action assertions from structural assertions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Structural assertions include keys, cardinalities, and referential integrity.
• Action assertions regulate what actions may occur and under what conditions.
• We are not focusing on a specific DBMS; the concepts are platform-agnostic.

Concept / Approach:
An action assertion is not a static fact; it constrains or triggers behavior when events happen. Examples include “Do not approve an order over 10,000 unless manager_approval = true” or “When an invoice is paid, update account status.” By contrast, structural assertions define the organization’s static data structure, such as “Each order must reference exactly one customer.” The statement in the stem confuses these categories, so it is incorrect.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Check any business rule catalog: entries labeled ECA (event–condition–action) are action assertions. They are operational, not purely structural.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Calling the statement “Correct” equates action assertions to structure, which is a category error.
• References to participation or referential integrity are structural, not action assertions.

Common Pitfalls:
Embedding action rules only in UI code, causing inconsistencies across channels; prefer central enforcement via services, triggers, or workflow engines where appropriate.

Final Answer:
Incorrect