The information in *EFF-DEPS* and *DEP-DEPS* is analyzed, optimized, and then
compared to the effects for each rule recorded in *EFFECTS*. The
aim is, for each rule A, to record all the other rules that must be failed 
if that rule
is instantiated. *EFF-DEPS* records all the rules that have an effect that conflicts
with a constraint; thus, all the constraints of a rule are looked up in *EFF-DEPS* with
any conflicting rules added to *EFF-FAILERS*. Likewise, all of the rule that have a DEP
rule that conflicts with a constraint are recorded in *DEP-DEPS*. Thus, all of the
constraints of a rule are looked up in *DEP-DEPS* with any conflicting rules added
to *EFF-FAILERS*. For RELATION-20 rule 0 (index number 0) and rule 1 (index
number 1), the following effects would be imposed if they were instantiated
(information retrieved from *EFFECTS*):
RELATION-20 rule 0: ((CLAUSE-28 (NC (SENTENCE))) (%DEATH-1 (C (OMIT AGENT))) (%DEATH-1 (C (FORM GERUND)))) (RELATION-20 rule 1: ((CLAUSE-28 (NC (SENTENCE))) (%DEATH-1 (C (FORM NOMINALIZE))))
Each of these effects are then looked up in *EFF-DEPS* to see if any conflict
with another rule. None of these effects conflict with an effect of another rule
. Each of the effects is then looked
up in *DEP-DEPS*. The only conflict found is the constraint (CLAUSE-28
(NC (SENTENCE))), which conflicts the second DEP rule in the first rule of
CLAUSE-28 (see Figure 1). This conflicting rule has index number 2, and since
both of RELATION-20's rules have this effect, rule 2 shows up in *EFF-FAILERS* for
both:
*EFF-FAILERS*
0 (2) 1 (2)