Structured Element Extraction

Chinese source (authoritative): ../../skills/structured-element-extraction/SKILL.md

07 Structured Element Checklist

I. Overview Table

II. Legal Disclaimer

Important: This skill file is an operational guide for an AI agent and does not constitute legal advice. Extraction of a structured element checklist depends on accurate understanding of the constituent elements of the relevant legal field. In actual legal services, the checklist should be reviewed and confirmed by a licensed legal professional. When outputting an element checklist, the AI agent should clearly label confidence and prompt the user to manually review key elements.

III. Core Concepts

3.1 What Are "Structured Elements"

Structured elements are the result of breaking a legal question into minimal decidable units. Each element should satisfy:

• Atomicity: Cannot be further meaningfully subdivided
• Decidability: Can receive a clear judgment of "satisfied / not satisfied / to be verified"
• Independence: Elements do not logically contain one another (MECE)
• Traceability: Each element can be traced to a specific legal provision or doctrinal basis

3.2 Three Sources of Elements

3.3 Element Status Labeling System

Each extracted element must be labeled with one of the following statuses:

3.4 MECE in Legal Element Extraction

MECE = Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive

• Mutually exclusive: No containment or overlap between any two elements at the same level
• Collectively exhaustive: Together, the elements cover all judgment dimensions of the legal question

Typical MECE violations:

• Listing "fault" and "intent" as same-level elements (containment)
• Omitting "causation" (not exhaustive)
• Mixing "questions of fact" and "questions of law" at the same level (inconsistent classification)

IV. Complete Workflow

Phase 1: Identify Problem Type and Fix the Element Framework

Copy code
Step 1.1 → Identify the type of legal question
         ├── Contract disputes (formation, validity, performance, breach, termination)
         ├── Tort liability (general tort, special tort, product liability, etc.)
         ├── Crime composition (four-element / three-stratum systems)
         ├── Administrative acts (five elements of legality review)
         ├── Procedural matters (jurisdiction, limitation, standing)
         └── Other types (by specific field)

Step 1.2 → Retrieve the corresponding standard element framework
         - Prefer statutory constituent elements
         - If statutory elements unclear, refer to judicial interpretations
         - If neither is clear, refer to prevailing doctrine

Step 1.3 → Confirm hierarchical structure of the framework
         - Level-1 elements: statutory constituent elements (must all be covered)
         - Level-2 elements: refinements of level-1 elements
         - Level-3 elements: concrete factual judgment points (optional, by complexity)

Phase 2: Extract and Fill Elements Item by Item

Copy code
Step 2.1 → Against the framework, extract corresponding facts from raw materials
         - Extract each element independently; do not skip
         - Quote key sentences from raw materials directly
         - Mark unextractable elements as "to be verified"

Step 2.2 → Label status for each element (✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶)

Step 2.3 → Record evidence / basis source for each element
         - Fact elements: which part of which material
         - Legal elements: corresponding article numbers

Phase 3: Completeness Check (Triple Check)

Copy code
First check: Framework completeness
  → Ask: Any level-1 element in the standard framework omitted?
  → Method: Compare extraction result with the standard framework item by item
  → If omitted: Supplement and label status

Second check: Fact coverage
  → Ask: Are there important facts in the raw materials not yet "digested" by any element?
  → Method: Re-read raw materials; mark uncited fact fragments
  → If omitted: Assign to an element, or add a new element if needed

Third check: Logical coherence
  → Ask: Are there logical contradictions among elements?
  → Method: Check logical relations (e.g., consistency of causation and damage elements)
  → If contradiction: Label conflict points and note need for further analysis

Phase 4: Output and Handoff

Copy code
Step 4.1 → Output structured element checklist per standard template
Step 4.2 → Attach completeness declaration (passed / failed triple check)
Step 4.3 → Label overall confidence
Step 4.4 → List items to be verified (if any)
Step 4.5 → Confirm ready for next stage / need more information before continuing

V. Common Fields and Legal Sources

5.1 Contract Dispute Element Framework

5.2 General Tort Liability Element Framework

5.3 Crime Composition Framework (Four-Element System)

5.4 Administrative-Act Legality Review Framework

5.5 Labor Dispute Element Framework

VI. Verification and Screening Rules

6.1 Five Verification Rules for Element Extraction

6.2 Priority Rules for Element Screening

When raw materials are insufficient, proceed by priority:

1. Must elements: Every statutory constituent element — must be listed even if marked "to be verified"
2. Should elements: Elements affecting severity of legal consequences — should be listed
3. May elements: Auxiliary but not essential — may be listed
4. Exclude elements: Irrelevant to the case — do not list, but briefly record exclusion reasons

VII. Output Format Templates

Template A: Standard Element Checklist

markdownCopy code
## Structured Element Checklist

**Legal question:** [brief description]
**Question type:** [contract / tort / crime composition / administrative act / other]
**Applicable framework:** [framework name and legal source]
**Extraction date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

### Element Checklist

| No. | Level | Element name | Status | Fact summary | Source / basis | Notes |
|------|------|----------|------|----------|-----------|------|
| 1 | L1 | [Level-1 element 1] | ✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶 | [corresponding facts] | [article] | [notes] |
| 1.1 | L2 | [Level-2 element 1.1] | ✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶 | [corresponding facts] | [article] | [notes] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Completeness Check Results

| Check item | Result | Explanation |
|--------|------|------|
| Framework completeness | ✅ Pass / ❌ Fail | [explanation] |
| Fact coverage | ✅ Pass / ❌ Fail | [explanation] |
| Logical coherence | ✅ Pass / ❌ Fail | [explanation] |

### Items to Be Verified

1. [Element X]: Need to supplement [specific information]
2. [Element Y]: Need to confirm [specific issue]

### Overall confidence: [High/Medium/Low] — [brief reason]

### Conclusion: [May enter next stage / Need more information before continuing]

Template B: Concise Element Checklist (Quick Verification)

markdownCopy code
## Element Checklist — [brief legal question]

**Framework:** [name] | **Legal source:** [core articles]

- [ ] Element 1: [name] — [status] — [one-sentence note]
- [ ] Element 2: [name] — [status] — [one-sentence note]
- [ ] Element 3: [name] — [status] — [one-sentence note]
- [ ] Element 4: [name] — [status] — [one-sentence note]

**Omission check:** ✅ None / ⚠️ Omissions: [explanation]
**May continue:** ✅ Yes / ❌ No, reason: [explanation]

VIII. Confidence Labeling System

8.1 Single-Element Confidence

8.2 Overall Checklist Confidence

8.3 Confidence and Next Actions

IX. Common Errors and Prevention

9.1 Fatal Error Table

9.2 Common Traps

X. Special Scenario Handling

10.1 Intersecting Legal Relationships

Scenario: Same facts involve multiple legal relationships (e.g., concurrent contract breach and tort)

Handling:

1. Build an independent element checklist for each legal relationship
2. Cross-reference shared fact elements between checklists
3. Explicitly state "This case involves N legal relationships; separate checklists established"
4. If claim concurrence exists, note the concurrence relationship

10.2 Vague or Blank Law

Scenario: Legal standard for an element is unclear; no direct provision to cite

Handling:

1. Label legal source as "prevailing doctrine" or "similar-case adjudicative rules"
2. List at least two reference cases or scholarly views
3. Mark element confidence as Medium or Low
4. Note the specific source of uncertainty

10.3 Severely Insufficient Facts

Scenario: User information extremely limited; many elements cannot be judged

Handling:

1. Still list the complete element framework (do not omit for lack of information)
2. Mark all undecidable elements as ⚠️
3. Generate an "information supplementation request list" by priority
4. Overall confidence Low; expressly state next stage must not begin

10.4 Multiple Time Nodes for Applicable Law

Scenario: Facts span before and after a statutory amendment

Handling:

1. Fix the time of each fact element
2. Fix the effective law version for each time point
3. If different versions apply at different times, build separate checklists
4. Clearly label the temporal dividing line for applicable law

10.5 Party Dispute Focus Not Fully Aligned with Framework

Scenario: Parties dispute something outside the core elements of the standard framework

Handling:

1. Still complete full extraction under the standard framework (no omission)
2. Add a "dispute-focus elements" section for issues actually disputed
3. Note the relationship between dispute focus and standard elements

XI. Quality Checklist

Before outputting a structured element checklist, the AI agent must complete:

Pre-extraction Checks

• Legal question type clearly identified
• Correct element framework selected
• Applicable law version (time node) confirmed
• All raw materials read at least once

Extraction Process Checks

• Every level-1 element listed (no omission)
• Every element status-labeled (✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶)
• Every "satisfied" element has fact summary and source citation
• Same-level elements have no overlap (MECE–exclusive)
• All level-1 elements together cover all judgment dimensions (MECE–exhaustive)
• Exemptions / defenses and other negative elements considered
• Procedural elements considered (limitation, jurisdiction, etc., if applicable)

Pre-output Checks

• Triple completeness check executed and results recorded
• Overall confidence labeled
• Items to be verified listed (if any)
• Explicitly labeled "may enter next stage" or "need more information"
• Output format matches standard template
• Fact summaries do not mix in legal conclusions

XII. Complete Examples

Example 1: Simple Scenario — General Tort Element Extraction

Raw materials:

On 15 March 2024, while reversing in a shopping-mall parking lot, Zhang San failed to observe behind and knocked down Li Si who was walking through. Li Si was taken to hospital, diagnosed with a right-leg fracture, hospitalized 20 days, medical expenses RMB 32,000. Traffic police issued an accident determination finding Zhang San fully liable. Li Si lost RMB 15,000 in wages during hospitalization.

Structured Element Checklist

Legal question: Zhang San reversed into Li Si; can Li Si require Zhang San to bear tort damages? Question type: Tort liability (general tort — fault liability) Applicable framework: Four elements of general tort (Civil Code Art. 1165(1)) Extraction date: 2024-03-20

Element Checklist

Completeness Check Results

Items to Be Verified

1. Mental harm (element 2.3): Confirm whether Li Si claims mental damages; disability rating from fracture
2. Forum (element 6.2): Confirm place of accident and defendant’s domicile for jurisdiction

Overall confidence: High

Core four elements (injurious act, damage, causation, subjective fault) all "satisfied"; facts clear; legal sources clear. Items to verify do not affect the basic judgment that tort liability is established.

Conclusion: ✅ May enter next stage (application of law and liability determination)

Example 2: Complex Scenario — Labor Relationship Confirmation + Unlawful Termination

Raw materials:

Wang joined a tech company on 1 June 2022 as a software engineer, monthly salary RMB 20,000; the company did not sign a written labor contract. Wang worked at the company office during company hours (9:00–18:00), used company computer and workstation, and accepted project-manager assignments and appraisals. Wages paid monthly by bank transfer.

On 10 August 2023, the company orally told Wang "due to business adjustment, no need to come tomorrow," without stating specific termination grounds, without 30 days’ advance notice, and without any economic compensation. Wang asked for a written termination notice; the company refused.

Wang had no disciplinary record; performance appraisals were all "合格" (合格) or above. The company did not pay social insurance for Wang.

On 1 September 2023 Wang applied to the local labor arbitration commission seeking: (1) confirmation of labor relationship; (2) double-wage differential for failure to sign a written contract; (3) compensation for unlawful termination; (4) make-up of social insurance.

Structured Element Checklist

Legal question: Is there a labor relationship between Wang and the tech company? Was termination unlawful? Can Wang’s claims be supported? Question type: Labor dispute (relationship confirmation + unlawful termination + multiple claims) Applicable framework: Labor-relationship confirmation elements + legality of labor-contract termination Extraction date: 2024-03-20

Note: Multiple legal issues; separate element checklists established.

Checklist 1: Labor Relationship Confirmation

Applicable framework: MOLSS Fa [2005] No. 12, Art. 1

Checklist 2: Double Wages for Unsigned Written Contract

Applicable framework: Labor Contract Law Arts. 10, 82; Implementing Regulations Arts. 6, 7

Checklist 3: Unlawful Termination

Applicable framework: Labor Contract Law Arts. 36–43, 48, 87

Checklist 4: Social Insurance Make-up

Completeness Check Results

Items to Be Verified (by priority)

1. [High] Fault for non-signing (Checklist 2–element 6): Confirm whether company failed to offer or Wang refused
2. [High] Union procedure (Checklist 3–element 3.3): Confirm whether company has a union
3. [Medium] Prohibited-termination situations (Checklist 3–element 5): Medical period, pregnancy, etc.
4. [Medium] Double-wage arbitration limitation (Checklist 2–element 5): Local arbitration practice on double-wage limitation
5. [Medium] Social-insurance make-up acceptance (Checklist 4–element 3): Whether local arbitration accepts make-up claims
6. [Low] Employer form (Checklist 1–element 1.1): Specific organizational form
7. [Low] Monthly wage composition (Checklist 3–element 4.2): Whether RMB 20,000 is all remuneration

Overall confidence: Medium

Reasons: Checklist 1 (relationship confirmation) high confidence; all four elements satisfied. Checklist 3 (unlawful termination) core judgment high confidence (grounds and procedure both unlawful). But double-wage limitation and social-insurance acceptance vary by locality and need confirmation. Overall, core claims (confirm relationship + unlawful-termination damages) have a sufficient analytical basis to enter the next stage, with uncertainties labeled.

Conclusion: ✅ May enter next stage (application of law and claim assessment), but keep the 7 items to be verified labeled, and recommend the user supplement high-priority information.