Interacting with things in transparent containers: An exception to basic accessibility rule (without deprecated procedural rules)

This seems so basic, I am embarrassed not to know this or be able to figure it out.

I have a person in car who should be able to be examined, but is being blocked by the Basic Accessibility rule. I don’t want to replace the rule, only to create an exception – if the container is not a car or not transparent, the rule should continue.

Without the rule, hitting or examining the sheriff looks like this:

>x sherrif’s car

It is dark green, mostly, with white doors, and a big black and gold badge on the door that says “Sierra County Sheriff.” It has red lights along the top. This is a big boxy car that looks kinda muscular and mean like the yellow dog.

“Well, pretty good, Bill. I can’t complain,” the Cat Lady tells the Sheriff. Then a frown crosses her face, “Oh except Oliver has an abscess. I have to take him to the kitty doctor next week.”

>x sheriff
Oh? Do you see that here?

Previously, I had:

Procedural rule when doing anything to sheriff when sheriff is visible and sheriff is in sheriffs_car:
	ignore the basic accessibility rule;

What is an elegant way to replace my old procedural rule without replacing the Basic Accessibility rule?

could the car just be open? You could suppress the “in which is the sheriff” with:

Rule for printing room description details of the sheriff's car:
omit contents in listing.
1 Like
Rule for reaching inside when doing something with the sheriff and the sheriff is visible and the sheriff is in the sheriffs_car:
	allow access.

Or just

Rule for reaching inside the sheriffs_car:
	allow access.

Is there a reason not to just make the car transparent? The purpose of transparency is to be able to examine things inside it from outside, and vice versa.