  Justification theory is a unifying semantic framework. While it has its roots
in non-monotonic logics, it can be applied to various areas in computer
science, especially in explainable reasoning; its most central concept is a
justification: an explanation why a property holds (or does not hold) in a
model. In this paper, we continue the study of justification theory by means of
three major contributions. The first is studying the relation between
justification theory and game theory. We show that justification frameworks can
be seen as a special type of games. The established connection provides the
theoretical foundations for our next two contributions. The second contribution
is studying under which condition two different dialects of justification
theory (graphs as explanations vs trees as explanations) coincide. The third
contribution is establishing a precise criterion of when a semantics induced by
justification theory yields consistent results. In the past proving that such
semantics were consistent took cumbersome and elaborate proofs. We show that
these criteria are indeed satisfied for all common semantics of logic
programming. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and
Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).
