Legal Article Retrieval

Chinese source (authoritative): ../../skills/legal-article-retrieval/SKILL.md

Overall Retrieval Process Map

Copy code
Preparation Stage → Thinking Stage → Execution Stage → Review Stage → Deliverable Stage
    ↓                    ↓                ↓               ↓                ↓
Clarify purpose    Hierarchy of     Systematic      Cross-validation   Report presentation
Tool configuration   sources         retrieval      Subsumption test    Conclusion formation
                   Legal relations   Keyword method Retrieval loop      Risk warnings
                   Claim-based       Case reverse-
                     thinking          lookup
                   Validity screening
                   Conflict handling

Stage 1: Retrieval Preparation and Information Confirmation

1.1 Defining the Retrieval Purpose

Law is abstract. Statutory text may present unclear major-premise semantics or indeterminate word meaning and scope. In practice, parties often dispute the specific meaning of a provision. Therefore, before citing a legal rule, counsel should not only understand the provision’s literal meaning and logical structure, but also consider its application requirements and consult authoritative interpretations by relevant bodies.

Typical retrieval scenarios:

1. Determining the legal basis for litigation claims
2. Reviewing the law applied by the opposing party
3. Rechecking the law applied in an adjudication

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case Retrieval purpose: Ascertain restrictive rules on how far a highway under construction must be kept from residential areas

1.2 Prerequisite Information Confirmation (Mandatory Process)

Before entering legal retrieval, confirm that all of the following information has been obtained:

Questioning template:

Copy code
Please supplement the following information so I can accurately retrieve legal authorities:

1. [Dispute type] What kind of legal issue are you facing?
   - Labor dispute (overtime pay, resignation, work injury, etc.)
   - Contract dispute (sale, lease, loan, etc.)
   - Tort liability (traffic accident, personal injury, etc.)
   - Marriage & family (divorce, inheritance, property, etc.)
   - Other (please specify)

2. [Party information] What is your status?
   - Worker / consumer / citizen / enterprise, etc.

3. [Core facts] Briefly describe what happened (time, course of events, relief sought)

4. [Geography] Does a specific locality apply? (e.g., Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, or other places with special rules)

5. [Legal relationship] Have you and the other party signed a contract? (e.g., employment contract / service contract)

[Strictly Prohibited]

• Do not call any legal retrieval tool before the user has confirmed the facts
• Do not perform inferential legal analysis based on assumptions
• Do not include legal conclusions in the fact summary

Process requirements:

1. Output a “Fact Summary” covering: parties (you vs. the other party), timeline (what happened), conduct (specific acts), issues in dispute (what you want), geography (localities involved)
2. Explicitly ask for confirmation: “Are the above facts accurate? Please state any supplements or corrections.”
3. Enter the legal retrieval stage only after the user confirms

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case

• Parties: Highway construction entity vs. owners of adjacent residential properties
• Core facts: Highway construction is too close to the residential area; owners claim their rights and interests are harmed
• Issue in dispute: Whether law clearly restricts the distance between a highway and residential areas
• Geography: Consider national laws and local rules (e.g., Guangdong Province Highway Regulations)

Stage 2: Retrieval Tool Configuration and Database Selection

Classified by types of sources of law:

2.1 Baseline Databases (Primary Legal Resources)

Definition: Normative legal resources, mainly laws, administrative regulations, legal interpretations, and similar instruments enacted by state legislative bodies and government. In common-law jurisdictions these also include judicial precedents and decisions. Such resources have legal effect and are normative.

Characteristics:

1. Mandatory and normative
2. Different levels of hierarchical effect
3. Legal documents have temporal validity
4. Large volume of legal literature
5. Accessed and used through particular methods

Commonly used baseline databases:

• PKULaw (北大法宝) (including English version)
• Lawyee (北大法意)
• Angle Knowledge Base (月旦知识库)
• Westlaw China (万律网)
• WestlawNext
• Lexis Advance
• HeinOnline
• Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
• Kluwer Law Online
• Beck-online (German)
• China Judgments Online (中国裁判文书网)

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case Retrieval tools: PKULaw (北大法宝), China Judgments Online

2.2 Auxiliary Databases (Secondary Legal Resources)

Definition: Non-normative legal resources—all literature and information that interprets, researches, discusses, or comments on law, such as law review articles, monographs, textbooks, and explanations or commentaries on statutes and cases. Such resources do not have legal force.

Characteristics:

• Multiple publication types, large volume, widely used
• Retrieved by literature type (books, journals, theses, etc.)
• Includes self-media, WeChat official accounts, and other new-media resources

Types of auxiliary resources:

• Secondary materials: Textbooks, practice guides, monographs, WeChat official accounts, Wolters Kluwer China professional commentary, firm work product, government websites, case analyses, academic articles, online discussion, legislative developments, etc.
• Global search: Search engines (Google, Baidu, Sogou WeChat) to retrieve articles for background
• AI assistance: AI for fuzzy retrieval and preliminary analysis, but results may be used only after verification against baseline databases

Important note: Titles of laws and regulations, category, issuing authority, issuance date, effective date, and validity status are of particular importance.

2.3 Proprietary Databases

• The user’s local databases
• The law firm’s accumulated case-handling experience

Stage 3: Retrieval Thinking and Methodological Framework

3.1 Hierarchy-of-Sources Retrieval

Retrieval order: Constitution → statutes (laws) → administrative regulations → local regulations → departmental rules → judicial interpretations

Contemporary Chinese system of sources of law:

Hierarchy-of-effect rules (as provided in the Legislation Law):

• The Constitution has the highest legal effect
• Statutes have higher effect than administrative regulations, local regulations, and rules
• Administrative regulations have higher effect than local regulations and rules
• Local regulations have higher effect than local government rules at the same level and below
• Rules of provincial/autonomous-region governments have higher effect than rules of governments of cities divided into districts and autonomous prefectures within that administrative region

Application rules:

• Normative documents enacted by the same body: where a special provision conflicts with a general provision, apply the special provision; where a new provision conflicts with an old provision, apply the new provision
• Conflict adjudication procedures: conflicts between statutes are decided by the NPC Standing Committee; conflicts between administrative regulations by the State Council; conflicts between departmental rules and local government rules by the State Council

Operational points:

• Record invalid retrieval paths (to understand legislative gaps)
• Excerpt effective provisions and keep the original text intact
• Identify the relationship between jurisdiction and the rank of the issuing body
• Flag documents from bodies without authority (e.g., internal meeting minutes cannot be used directly as adjudicative authority)

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case Hierarchy-of-sources retrieval process:

• Invalid retrieval (record the path): Road Traffic Safety Law; Regulations on the Implementation of the Road Traffic Safety Law; Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Measures for Completion (Handover) Acceptance of Highway Engineering Projects (no specific distance rules)
• Valid retrieval:
  • Statutes: General Principles of the Civil Law Art. 83 (neighboring relations), Art. 106 (tort liability); Property Law Art. 91 (safety of immovable property)
  • Administrative regulations: Regulations on Highway Safety Protection Art. 11 (highway building control zone of no less than 30 meters), Arts. 13 and 28
  • Local regulations: Guangdong Province Highway Regulations Arts. 5 and 9 (highway and building clusters no less than 200 meters)
  • Other normative documents: Technical Standard of Highway Engineering Art. 3.0.1

3.2 Legal-Relationship Thinking

Core logic: Examine legal relationships in the chronological order in which case facts arose; treat legal relationships as the focus of examination; determination of legal facts and legal relationships precedes the search for norms.

Retrieval process

• Retrieval content

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case Characterization of the legal relationship: Neighboring-relations dispute + tort-liability dispute

• Subject qualification: Highway construction entity (holder of rights in immovable property) vs. neighboring residents (holders of rights in adjacent immovable property)
• Rights and obligations: The construction entity must not endanger the safety of adjacent immovable property; residents enjoy neighboring-rights protection
• Applicable law: Neighboring-relations rules in the General Principles of the Civil Law; Property Law Art. 91; Tort Liability Law

1. Application relationship between General Provisions and Specific Provisions

Principle–exception structure analysis

plainCopy code
30-meter rule (mandatory norm; floor)
    └── 200-meter rule (planning norm; ceiling)
            └── Proviso: “determined according to requirements such as safe sight distance”

System-logic conclusion:

• <30 meters: Directly unlawful
• 30–200 meters: Need further examination of whether safety is “endangered”
• ≥200 meters: Conforms to planning; generally not a tort
  Structure of rights and obligations content

plainCopy code
Rights system
├── Dominion rights (real rights, personality rights) → absolute rights → erga omnes
├── Claim rights (obligatory rights) → relative rights → inter partes
├── Defenses (against claim rights)
└── Formative rights (unilaterally change a legal relationship)

Obligations system
├── Duties to act (affirmative conduct)
└── Duties to forbear (non-infringement)

3.3 Claim-Based Thinking Retrieval

Core logic: Start from the claim basis; examine whether the plaintiff’s litigation claims can be established; the search for norms precedes determination of legal facts.

1. Retrieval order

1. Whether the claim has already arisen
2. Whether the claim has not been extinguished
3. Whether the claim may be exercised

Copy code
Tier 1: Contractual claims (priority of private autonomy)
    └── Detailed reasons table for priority over negotiorum gestio, real rights, tort, and unjust enrichment
    
Tier 2: Claims from unilateral juristic acts (bequests, reward advertisements)

Tier 3: Quasi-contractual claims (culpa in contrahendo, unauthorized agency)
    └── Priority reason: related to contracting; good-faith duties higher than in ordinary relations

Tier 4: Claims under status law (maintenance, child support, parental support)

Tier 5: Negotiorum gestio claims (lawful justification)
    └── Justifying character + alignment with Core Socialist Values (avoid the adverse effects of the “Peng Yu case”)

Tier 6: Real-rights claims (priority of real-rights protection)
    └── Three reasons for priority over obligatory rights (priority of effect, no limitation period, no fault required)
    └── Four-type table (return of the original thing, elimination of obstruction, elimination of danger, restoration to original condition)

Tier 7: Possession-protection claims (protection of factual status)
    └── Four types + 1-year preclusive period (除斥期间)

Tier 8: Unjust enrichment claims (correction of benefit shifts)
    └── Reason for priority over tort (fault not required)

Tier 9: Tort claims (catch-all protection)
    └── Four types (general, presumed fault, no-fault, joint)
    └── Reason for placing last (not a premise for other claims)

2. Concurrence and choice of claims (highway case)

Litigation strategy:

• Assert real-rights claim + tort claim together (aggregation of claims)
• First seek elimination of obstruction and elimination of danger
• Concurrently seek damages

3. Three-layer structure for examining claims

Copy code
Has the claim arisen?
    ├── Tatbestand (符合构成要件 / fits the constitutive elements)
    ├── Unlawfulness (whether justifying grounds exist)
    └── Culpability (whether fault exists)
        ↓
Has the claim not been extinguished?
    ├── Performance, deposit, set-off, release, merger
    ├── Expiry of the limitation period
    └── Right-holder’s waiver
        ↓
May the claim be exercised?
    ├── Do defenses exist?
    └── Are there other obstacles to exercise?

4. Supplementary doctrinal explanations

5. Case: Nine-tier examination table for the highway case

3.4 Screening the Validity of Statutory Provisions

Operational process

Theoretical framework of legal effect

3.4.1 Personal Effect: Four Principles

Operational flowchart:

Copy code
Does the case involve foreign-related elements?
    ├── Yes → Judge the type of connecting factor
    │           ├── Act/result within Chinese territory? → Territoriality first
    │           ├── Is one party a Chinese citizen? → Personality as supplement
    │           └── Harm to major Chinese national or citizen interests? → Protection as supplement
    └── No → Apply territoriality directly

3.4.2 Spatial Effect of Law: Concrete Application of Levels and Scope

Hierarchical retrieval flowchart:

Copy code
Determine where the case arose
    ↓
Layer 1: Retrieve central legislation (nationwide effect)
    ├── Constitution → statutes → administrative regulations → departmental rules
    ↓
Layer 2: Retrieve local legislation (effect within the administrative region)
    ├── Provincial local regulations → local regulations of cities divided into districts → provincial government rules → municipal government rules of cities divided into districts
    ↓
Layer 3: Retrieve special-region legislation (may adapt)
    ├── Autonomy regulations, separate regulations → SEZ regulations
    ↓
Layer 4: Judge conflicts and application

3.4.3 Temporal Effect of Law: Effectiveness, Termination, Retroactivity

Temporal-effect operational flowchart:

Copy code
Build a case timeline
    ↓
Determine time of legal act vs. time law took effect
    ↓
Compare and judge
    ├── Act before law took effect → generally apply old law (non-retroactivity)
    │                               ├── Criminal law: retrieve “old law with lighter penalty if favorable”
    │                               ├── Civil law: favorable retroactivity generally not allowed
    │                               └── Procedural law: apply new law (procedure from the new)
    └── Act after law took effect → apply new law
            ↓
Judge whether the law has been repealed (express / implied)
            ↓
Judge whether it is a time-spanning act → generally apply new law (from-the-new principle)

3.4.4 Level of Effect and Conflict Resolution

Conflict-resolution decision flowchart:

Copy code
Discover conflict between provisions
    ↓
Judge whether enacted by the same body
    ├── Yes (same rank) → Judge conflict type
    │                       ├── Special vs. general → apply special law
    │                       ├── New vs. old → apply new law (only for acts after new law takes effect)
    │                       └── New general vs. old special → request enacting body to decide
    └── No (different ranks) → Judge level of effect
                            ├── Lower conflicts with higher → apply higher-level law
                            ├── Local regulations vs. departmental rules → State Council opinion → decision
                            ├── Departmental rules vs. local government rules → State Council decides
                            ├── Autonomy / separate regulation adaptations → preferential within authority
                            └── SEZ regulation adaptations → preferential within the SEZ

General principles for resolving legal conflicts

Special situations in resolving legal conflicts

When conflict cannot be resolved: Refer to the purpose of the norms and existing precedents; use dialectical reasoning (substantive reasoning) to resolve hard problems caused by the complexity of legal provisions.

Situations for dialectical reasoning:

• Certain legal provisions clearly lag behind social development
• Provisions at the same rank conflict with each other
• Hard problems arise from the complexity of legal provisions
• Two legal propositions serving as premises of legal reasoning contradict each other Special conflict-resolution situations:

Highway case: hierarchy-of-effect conflict check:

Validity-check table (highway case)

Stage 4: Retrieval Execution Methods and Techniques

4.0 Data-Source and Tool-Call Convention (Mandatory)

Core principle: Every statutory provision cited under this skill must come from real retrieval. Fabricating article numbers or content from memory is strictly forbidden.

Before executing the retrieval methods below, first determine whether a regulation-retrieval tool exists in the runtime environment (e.g., a connected regulation-library MCP service, retrieval API, or local regulation library):

1. If it exists: The designed search queries must be submitted to that tool; its returned real results (law name, document number, effect level, effective/expiry dates, provision text, source link) are the sole data source for subsequent subsumption, citation, and reporting. Do not substitute or supplement retrieval results with “provisions” from memory.
2. If it does not exist: Complete search-query design and methodological steps as usual, but mark every place involving a concrete provision as [待查] (to be verified), and state in the report that “no regulation library is connected; the following queries must be executed manually.” Never fabricate article numbers, content, or document numbers.
3. Tool-agnostic: This convention depends only on the abstract capability “input search terms → return real statutory text,” and is not tied to any particular vendor. For concrete integration methods (e.g., PKULaw MCP), see README.md in this skill’s directory.

4.1 Systematic Retrieval Method (Top-Down)

Core idea: Provisions at higher levels of the legal hierarchy are usually highly general, while more detailed rules often appear in related judicial interpretations. When understanding a judicial-interpretation provision, consult the “Understanding and Application” materials organized by the Supreme People’s Court for that interpretation, or the press release and press conference Q&A issued by the SPC or its relevant departments when the interpretation was released.

Operational steps:

1. Start from the legal system / structure of provisions: First review the principled rules of the basic law (e.g., before looking up Marriage Law judicial interpretations, first look at the Marriage Law itself)
2. Use automatic indexing: Professional databases automatically index under each provision other laws, judicial interpretations, judgments, etc., that cite it
3. From general law to special law: e.g., for real-estate research, first Property Law, then departmental laws such as Land Administration Law

Sources that may serve as adjudicative authority:

• NPC legislation, administrative regulations, judicial interpretations, local regulations
• Guiding Cases of the SPC and SPP (quasi-sources of law)

Tips for identifying judicial interpretations:

• Post-1997 judicial interpretations must carry a “Fa Shi” document number
• Pre-1997 judicial interpretations are determined by convention
• Critical distinction: “Ta” (他) series replies are only case-specific replies, not judicial interpretations; “Fa Shi” approvals are judicial interpretations
• Verification sources: Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court and Collection of Judicial Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court (1949–2013)

References for understanding provisions:

• NPC legislation: consult NPC Legislative Affairs Commission statutory commentaries and corresponding SPC “understanding and application” books
• SPC judicial interpretations: consult corresponding SPC “understanding and application” books for those interpretations

Principle–specific-part approach: Use a general-to-special retrieval path

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case Systematic retrieval process:

1. General-law retrieval: From General Principles of the Civil Law Art. 83 (general neighboring-relations rule) → Property Law Art. 91 (safety of immovable property)
2. Special-law retrieval: Highway Law → Regulations on Highway Safety Protection (specialized administrative regulation)
3. Local-rule retrieval: Guangdong Province Highway Regulations (local special rule: 200-meter spacing)
4. Technical-norm retrieval: Technical Standard of Highway Engineering (industry standard)
5. Discovery of related provisions: Art. 11 of the Regulations on Highway Safety Protection and Art. 5 of the Guangdong Province Highway Regulations differ (30 m vs. 200 m); conflict analysis is required

4.2 Keyword Retrieval Method (Precise Targeting)

Three-step method:

1. Reverse from purpose: Derive keywords from the retrieval purpose
2. Add/remove keywords (delete noise): Process core keywords
3. Keyword association: After establishing core keywords, radiate related dimensions

Methods for discovering keywords:

1. Start from Chinese text: Synonyms, near-synonyms, antonyms (e.g., “spouse” instead of “wife/husband/hubby/wifey”)
2. Derive from legal doctrine: Unauthorized disposition → bona fide acquisition; unauthorized agency → apparent agency
3. Discover from wording of related provisions
4. Discover from the prose of judgments
5. Start from industry customary terms
6. Extract overlapping characters/words: e.g., “contract invalid,” “contract valid,” “contract loses effect” → extract “contract effect”
7. Search logic symbols: space (AND), - (exclude), or (OR)

Expansion techniques:

• Base keywords (core elements)
• Expanded keywords (synonyms / higher-order terms)
• Exclusion keywords (reduce noise)

Adjusting retrieval aperture:

• Narrow aperture: Lengthen keywords (agency → unauthorized agency); add more keywords (disposition → disposition*invalid); add more retrieval fields (limit issuing body to SPC)
• Widen aperture: Use fewer words; use wildcards; add synonyms joined by OR

Principles for setting keywords:

1. Fuzzy first, then precise
2. Procedure first, then substance
3. Time first, then focus

Building search queries:

• Search query = retrieval path + search term + operators + search term
• Classification search, subject search, author search, title search, number search

Logical operators (Boolean operators):

• Logical AND (AND/*): Narrow scope; raise precision
• Logical OR (OR/+): Widen scope; raise recall
• Logical NOT (NOT/-): Exclude specific terms

Wildcards (truncation symbols):

• • (asterisk): Stands for one or more characters
• ? (question mark): Stands for one character

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case Keyword retrieval process:

• Round 1: “highway, meters” (too broad)
• Round 2: “highway, construction” (still broad)
• Round 3: “highway, land acquisition / expropriation / requisition / demolition” (expand synonyms)
• Optimization strategy: Discover related terms such as “building control zone,” “safety distance,” “spacing”
• Geographic association: Add “Guangdong Province,” “Highway Regulations” to limit local rules

4.3 Case Reverse-Lookup Method (Backward Derivation)

Applicable scenarios: Unfamiliar fields, or when statutory provisions cannot be precisely located

Theoretical basis: The major premise of a case usually cycles repeatedly between facts and law, between the individual case and similar cases, and between general and special situations. Individual cases do not arise according to the design scenarios of legal provisions; for constitutive elements, one must not only understand, interpret, and inwardly confirm them, but also “trim” the elements needed as premises of inference.

Operational process:

1. Retrieve cases with “case fact” keywords (subject, conduct, result)
2. Locate the structure of the judgment:
   • “Having ascertained through trial” (facts)
   • “This Court holds” (reasoning)
   • “In sum, pursuant to” (statutory provisions)
3. Reverse-derive applicable provisions; extract issues and rules

Retrieval-loop mechanism: Where no more applicable norm exists, and for objective reasons relevant materials are truly lacking so the matter cannot be resolved from the fact side, further retrieve other materials (e.g., targeted cases, legal theory) to interpret norms or fill gaps, while managing risk.

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case Discoveries from case reverse-lookup:

• Retrieve similar neighboring-relations disputes via China Judgments Online
• Claim bases found in similar-case judgments:
  • Cases ⑧ and ⑩ cite General Principles of the Civil Law Art. 106 (fault-based tort liability)
  • Case ⑨ cites General Principles of the Civil Law Art. 117 (property damage compensation) + Tort Liability Law Art. 85
• Damages calculation rule: Use house value as the base; discretionary reduction for plaintiff’s fault or natural depreciation

Stage 5: Retrieval Review and Quality Evaluation System

5.1 Retrieval Quality Evaluation Indicators

5.1.1 Core Indicator Definitions

5.2 Retrieval Review Mechanisms

Layer 1: Recall Assurance—Cross-Validation (Prevent Omissions)

Necessity: A single retrieval may produce biased conclusions; multi-dimensional verification is needed to ensure recall

Validation 1: Comparison across databases (core recall assurance)

Operational process:

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case

Initial search (PKULaw):

• Keywords: “highway neighboring relations”
• Results: 15 cases
• Recall assessment: Found Regulations on Highway Safety Protection Art. 11 ✓

Cross-validation (China Judgments Online):

• Same keywords
• Results: 22 cases (7 more)
• Difference analysis: Among the extra cases, 2 are critical similar cases (on compensation standards for building control zones)
• Recall problem: Initial search missed important similar cases; recall insufficient
• Remedial measures: Supplement exclusive China Judgments Online cases; expand keywords with “building control zone”

Validation 2: Validation by different methods

Method combinations:

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case

Systematic retrieval results:

• Found General Principles of the Civil Law Art. 83 (neighboring relations), Property Law Art. 91 (safety of immovable property)
• Recall assessment: Civil-law norms fully covered ✓

Keyword retrieval validation:

• Keywords: “highway distance compensation”
• Found Regulations on Highway Safety Protection Art. 13 (compensation rules)
• Recall assessment: Administrative regulations fully covered ✓

Case reverse-lookup validation:

• Through similar cases, found Guangdong Province Highway Regulations Art. 5 (200-meter spacing)
• Recall assessment: Local rules previously omitted; recall insufficient ✗
• Remedial measures: Add geographic limiters; retrieve similar rules in other provinces

Validation 3: Timeliness review

Review content:

Layer 2: Precision Optimization—Subsumption Test (Prevent Misuse)

Core task: After the retrieval report is formed, “subsume” it into the practice case to test the precision of results (whether they accurately apply to this case).

Six Elements of the Subsumption Test (Item-by-Item Precision Assessment)

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case

Subsumption test process:

Test Element	Initial Result	Precision Assessment	Problem Found	After Optimization
Legal facts	Retrieved “highway construction” cases	△	Mostly “land-acquisition compensation,” not “neighboring relations”	Add “neighboring relations” limiter; precision ↑
Legal application	Regulations on Highway Safety Protection Art. 11	✓	Correct application	Keep
Effect hierarchy	Found 30 m vs. 200 m conflict	✗	Conflict unresolved; precision ↓	Analyze different application scenarios; precision ↑
Evolutionary status	Retrieved 2010 cases	△	Some cases outdated	Limit to last 5 years; precision ↑
Geographic difference	Guangdong Province Highway Regulations	✓	Geography matches	Keep
Quantity	Initial search 200 items	✗	Too many; hard to screen	Optimized to 15; precision ↑

Example Precision Calculation After Subsumption Testing

Copy code
[Precision Comparison Before and After Subsumption Testing]

Initial results (200 items):
- Actually relevant (directly usable in the report): 60
- Actually irrelevant (to be excluded): 140
- Initial precision = 60/200 = 30% (too low; needs optimization)

After subsumption-test optimization (15 items):
- Actually relevant (directly usable in the report): 12
- Actually irrelevant (to be excluded): 3
- Optimized precision = 12/15 = 80% (meets target)

Precision-improvement strategies:
- Exclude repealed provisions (General Principles of the Civil Law-related clauses)
- Exclude irrelevant causes of action (ordinary traffic accidents)
- Exclude geographically mismatched rules (other provinces differing too much from Guangdong)
- Exclude outdated cases (compensation standards from 5+ years ago have changed)

Layer 3: Quality Balance—Second-Retrieval Decision

Trigger condition: When recall and precision cannot both meet targets, start a second retrieval

Second-retrieval decision matrix

Three principles of second retrieval

1. Make up for deficiencies of the first retrieval

   • Insufficient recall: Add databases, expand keywords, widen time range
   • Insufficient precision: Add limiters, use logical NOT, screen by authority

2. Oriented to the purpose of “subsumption”

   • All second-retrieval improvements must center on “whether it applies to this case”
   • Avoid seeking recall for its own sake and introducing many norms that cannot be subsumed

3. Follow the general retrieval process

   • Second retrieval is not simple repetition, but a complete “retrieve → cross-compare → report” process
   • Record differences between the two retrievals; explain the optimization process in the report

[Case Study] Highway and Residential Area Distance Case—Complete Second-Retrieval Process

First-retrieval assessment:

• Recall: 75% (missed Guangdong Province Highway Regulations Art. 5’s 200-meter rule)
• Precision: 40% (many traffic-accident cases mixed in)
• Decision: Both recall and precision insufficient; second retrieval needed

Second-retrieval optimization:

Optimization Dimension	First Retrieval	Second Retrieval	Improvement Effect
Databases	PKULaw only	Add China Judgments Online, local government websites	Found local regulations; recall ↑
Keywords	“highway neighboring relations”	“highway building control zone Guangdong Province”	Precise targeting; precision ↑
Time range	All time	Last 10 years	Fewer outdated cases; precision ↑
Geographic limits	None	Add “Guangdong Province”	Match this case’s locality; precision ↑
Cause-of-action screening	None	Limit to “neighboring-relations disputes”	Exclude traffic accidents; precision ↑

Second-retrieval assessment:

• Recall: 95% (covers core norms and local rules)
• Precision: 80% (most results usable directly)
• Decision: Targets met; proceed to report drafting

5.4 Common Quality Problems and Countermeasures

Stage 6: Presenting Retrieval Results and Drafting the Report

6.1 Legal Analysis Structural Framework

Analysis order (do not skip steps; do not merge):

1. Characterize the legal relationship
2. Break down constitutive elements
3. Compare elements item by item
4. Allocate the burden of proof
5. Analyze possible defenses
6. Assess conclusion probability

6.1.1 Characterization of the Legal Relationship

Must clearly state:

6.1.2 Explanation of Technical Terms

[Mandatory] The report must include a “Technical Terms Explained” section:

6.2 Norms for Citing Statutory Provisions

[Mandatory] Every legal authority must include the following elements:

Annotation of citation relationships among provisions:

Copy code
→ Citation relationship: Labor Contract Law Art. 87 → Labor Contract Law Art. 47 (economic compensation calculation standard)
→ Citation relationship: Lao She Bu Fa 〔2005〕 No. 12 Art. 1 → Labor Law Art. 16
→ Citation relationship: Regulations on Highway Safety Protection Art. 11 → Highway Law (higher-level authorizing law)

6.3 Labeling Hierarchy of Legal Norms

[Important Distinctions]

• Judicial interpretations: Have legal effect; courts at all levels must apply them
• Guiding Cases: Have referential effect (to be referred to and followed), but are not adjudicative authority
• Typical cases: For research reference only; no legal binding force

6.4 Organizing Limitation Periods and Deadlines

If limitation issues are involved, organize them separately:

6.5 Controlling the Strength of Conclusion Language

Conclusions must mark judgment strength:

• High probability of being established
• Substantial controversy exists
• Insufficient evidence to judge

Do not use absolute expressions (e.g., “certain to win,” “definitely unlawful”).

6.6 Standard Structure of the Retrieval Report

Normative legal-document retrieval results should be ordered as follows:

1. List document name, effective date, and clauses related to the case’s issues
2. List valid, relevant legal rules
3. Note the databases used and keywords entered
4. When submitting electronically, hyperlink the names of laws and regulations

Required report sections:

1. Statement of the Problem

• Clearly state the problem this retrieval addresses
• Facilitates judging whether the overall direction is wrong or biased

2. Course of Retrieval

• Note databases used
• Record keywords entered
• Describe the retrieval path

3. Listing of Norms (by Effect Hierarchy)

• Statutes (laws)
• Administrative regulations
• Local regulations
• Departmental rules
• Judicial interpretations
• Other normative documents

4. Retrieval Analysis

• Remain neutral and objective
• Group by relevance and strength
• Highlight conflicting authorities and explain reasons
• Elaborate separately at three levels: legislation (whether rules exist / reasons for gaps), enforcement (administrative application), and adjudication (judicial tendency / geographic differences / temporal evolution)
• Charts may be used to show adjudicative tendencies

5. Retrieval Conclusion

• Directly answer the retrieval purpose
• Clarify the current state of the law
• Summarize judicial practice tendencies
• Point out legal-application risk points (positive consequences + negative consequences)
• Seek opposing views or arguments; avoid accepting a single view
• Be wary of practice articles with brand-promotion aims; absorb critically

Complete Sample Retrieval Report

Legal Retrieval Report (Sample)

Main Text

Retrieval purpose: Ascertain restrictive rules on how far a highway under construction must be kept from residential areas

Retrieval tools: PKULaw (北大法宝), China Judgments Online

Retrieval keywords: highway, meters; highway, construction; highway, land acquisition / expropriation / requisition / demolition

Retrieved regulations and other documents:

4-1 Invalid retrieval (record the path):

• Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (no specific distance rules)
• Regulations on the Implementation of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (no specific distance rules)
• Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Measures for Completion (Handover) Acceptance of Highway Engineering Projects (no specific distance rules)

4-2 Valid retrieval:

4-2-1 Statutes (laws)

→ Citation relationship: Civil Code Art. 296 → former Property Law Art. 91 (succession relationship) → Citation relationship: Civil Code Art. 1253 → former Tort Liability Law Art. 85 (succession relationship)

4-2-2 Administrative regulations

→ Conflict note: Art. 11 of the Regulations on Highway Safety Protection (expressway 30 m) differs from Art. 5 of the Guangdong Province Highway Regulations (expressway 200 m); the former is a “building control zone” (new construction prohibited), the latter is “planning spacing” (planning control)

4-2-3 Other normative documents

Retrieval analysis:

6-1 Legal analysis of retrieval

On the legal analysis, perhaps due to legislative lag or legislative orientation, there is no specific statutory restriction on how much distance must be kept when a highway under construction passes near residential areas. Yet safety is mutual: rules on 30-meter highway control zones, safety technical assessment reports, environmental impact assessments, and the like all regulate the safety of highway construction. Still, these rules are hard for judges to use as a basis for finding that building a highway too close is unlawful.

Counsel’s conjecture as to why courts support plaintiffs’ claims is mainly that judges inwardly regard demolition and resettlement compensation as a necessary cost of highway construction, and secondarily that judges emphasize safety. The claim basis in such judgments is General Principles of the Civil Law Art. 106 in cases ⑧ and ⑩; case ⑨ cites General Principles of the Civil Law Art. 117 and Tort Liability Law Art. 85. On damages calculation, courts use house value as the base and discretionary reduce for plaintiff’s fault or natural depreciation of house value.

6-2 Norm conflict analysis

Retrieval conclusion:

Chinese law has no concrete, clear restrictive rule on the distance between a highway under construction and adjacent residential areas. (Conclusion strength: high probability of being established)

Legal-application risk warnings:

• Positive consequences: Damages may be claimed on neighboring-relations grounds; courts may support compensation requests
• Negative consequences: Hard to find the construction entity directly “unlawful”; difficult to seek stoppage of construction or demolition

8. Retrieval time spent: xx hours

9. Completion date: 4 January 2016

Appendix—Retrieval Quality

I. Recall assurance measures

1. Cross-database validation: Dual-database retrieval with PKULaw and China Judgments Online; overlap rate 65%; supplemented 3 exclusive cases
2. Cross-method validation: Systematic retrieval covered 3 levels—statutes, administrative regulations, local regulations; keyword retrieval underwent 3 rounds of expansion (“highway” → “building control zone” → “neighboring relations”)
3. Timeliness review: Retrieval cutoff April 2026, including latest Civil Code-related amendments

Self-assessed recall: 95% (no critical norms omitted, including core authorities such as Regulations on Highway Safety Protection Art. 11 and Guangdong Province Highway Regulations Art. 5)

Precision optimization measures

1. Authority-ranked screening:
   • Kept: 1 Guiding Case, 2 SPC Gazette cases, 5 high-court typical cases
   • Excluded: 12 intermediate/basic-court cases (reference only), 8 cases related to repealed provisions
2. Subsumption test: Compared the 6 difference factors item by item; excluded 23 inapplicable norms
3. Geographic matching: Limited to Guangdong Province and nationwide rules; excluded 15 local rules of other provinces

Self-assessed precision: 80% (of the final 15 norms, 12 are directly usable for legal analysis)

Retrieval process iteration log

Quality conclusion Through three rounds of iteration, this retrieval reached good levels on both recall and precision; the results can support a legal analysis report.