Authority Triage EN - route the source before the answer
Philosophy
Before a legal answer exists, you need to know which source controls it.
A model that starts from the conclusion and then shops for a provision works
in the wrong order - first the layer map, then the research, then the thesis.
This skill is the layer BEFORE grounding. Three skills, three jobs:
- authority-triage-en (this skill) says WHERE to look and IN WHAT ORDER,
- citation-grounding-pl verifies WHETHER a quote and citation are real,
- legal-request-router-pl decides WHAT level of control the result gets.
The skill gives no legal advice. It produces a source map and a verification
order. The output is a draft that goes through the human gate.
When to use
- An EU or member-state legal question with no single obvious source
("can a controller...", "is this clause enforceable...", "what sanctions
apply under...").
- The user asks directly: where to check this, what prevails, where to start,
what the hierarchy is.
- Before firing connectors - so queries follow the layer order instead of
hitting databases at random.
- Whenever a directive may be in play (transposition status changes the
answer) or two instruments may collide.
What it does NOT do
- Does not verify quote content or citation existence - that is
citation-grounding-pl.
- Does not assess stakes or pick a control path - that is
legal-request-router-pl.
- Does not answer the legal question on the merits - it delivers a map,
not a conclusion.
- Does not fetch sources itself - it names the connector, the connector fetches.
- Does not resolve a national-constitution vs EU-primacy standoff - that
collision is flagged to the human.
Layer map
Layer 1 - EU primary law
| # |
Source |
Notes |
| 1 |
Treaties (TEU, TFEU) |
the constitutional frame of the EU legal order |
| 2 |
Charter of Fundamental Rights |
same rank as the Treaties (Art. 6(1) TEU); binds member states when implementing EU law (Art. 51 CFR) |
| 3 |
General principles of EU law |
proportionality, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, effectiveness - developed by the CJEU |
Layer 2 - EU secondary law
| Instrument |
How it binds |
Research consequence |
| Regulation |
directly applicable in all member states, no transposition |
read the regulation itself; national law only fills opening clauses |
| Directive |
binding as to result; member states transpose |
ALWAYS run the transposition check: which national act implements it, was the deadline met; after the deadline, vertical direct effect is possible if the provision is clear, precise and unconditional |
| Decision |
binding on its addressees |
check who the addressee is before citing it against anyone else |
Primacy: on collision between national law and EU law, EU law prevails
(Costa v ENEL, 6/64); direct effect since Van Gend en Loos (26/62).
A collision between EU law and a national constitution is not resolved
here - flag it to the human.
Layer 3 - case law
| Court |
Authority status |
| CJEU |
interpretation of EU law binds national courts; preliminary rulings under Art. 267 TFEU; no formal stare decisis, but settled case law controls in practice |
| National apex courts |
supreme / cassation courts and constitutional courts; authority without formal precedent in most civil-law systems - weigh whether the ruling is an isolated decision or a settled line |
| ECtHR |
binds the respondent state in the case; the Strasbourg line steers ECHR interpretation across all parties |
Layer 4 - national chain
For every member state involved, map the same chain:
constitution -> statutes -> executive regulations -> local acts.
Internal administrative acts bind the administration, not the citizen.
The exact chain is national - if the member state is unknown, ask; if the
national provision cannot be confirmed in a database this session, tag it
[TO VERIFY].
Layer 5 - soft law (not a source of law; reliance on it can shield the addressee)
| Instrument |
Body |
| Guidelines, opinions, binding decisions under Art. 65 GDPR |
EDPB |
| Guidelines, Q&As, technical standards drafts |
ESMA |
| Guidelines, opinions, Q&As |
EBA |
| National regulator guidance |
e.g. data-protection and financial-market authorities |
Soft law never wins a collision with a statute or a regulation. Cite it as
regulator practice, clearly separated from the norm.
Workflow
Classify the question into layers. Which layers can control the
answer? Usually 2-3 (e.g. GDPR: EU regulation + national act filling the
opening clauses + EDPB guidelines + CJEU case law).
Set the verification order. Top layer down: the higher norm frames the
question before you read the implementing act or regulator practice.
Soft law is read LAST, against the norm.
Check collisions. Rules: lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior
(but a later general norm does not displace an earlier special one) plus
EU primacy over national statutes. For directives, the collision check
includes the transposition gap: national act missing, late or defective.
A collision the rules cannot close goes to the human gate.
Point to the connector for each layer:
| Layer |
Connector |
| EU law, CJEU case law (EUR-Lex / Cellar) |
eu-sparql-search |
| National legislation (ELI) |
national *-eli-mcp from the MateMatic line (e.g. sejm-eli-mcp for PL) |
| EU digital / data / cyber compliance acts |
mcp-eu-compliance |
| French legislation and codes |
mcp-fr-legal |
| German legislation |
mcp-de-legal [TO VERIFY availability - pre-release] |
Flag the temporal version. Three questions, every time:
- law as of the DATE OF THE EVENT or as of today? (dispute research =
version in force at the event; compliance = version in force now),
- vacatio legis / application date - EU acts often split entry into force
and date of application (the GDPR pattern: in force 2016, applying 2018),
- transitional provisions - does the old norm still govern pending cases.
Output format
Return exactly this template:
# Source map: [the question in one sentence]
Law as of: [event date / today - justify the choice]
Member state(s): [list or "EU level only"]
| Layer | Act / source | Connector | Verification status | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU primary | [treaty / Charter article] | eu-sparql-search | verified / to check | [Art. 51 CFR scope?] |
| EU secondary | [regulation / directive / decision + article] | eu-sparql-search / mcp-eu-compliance | verified / to check | [transposition? direct effect? application date?] |
| CJEU | [case, e.g. C-xxx/xx] | eu-sparql-search | to check | [settled line or isolated ruling?] |
| National statute | [act + article] | *-eli-mcp / mcp-fr-legal (DE: [TO VERIFY availability]) | verified / to check | [temporal version, vacatio legis] |
| National courts | [apex court ruling] | national connector / manual | to check | [authority without precedent] |
| Soft law | [EDPB / ESMA / EBA guideline] | manual | to check | [not a source of law] |
## Verification order
1. [source] - because [hierarchy rule]
2. ...
## Collisions
[lex superior / specialis / posterior / EU primacy / transposition gap -
or "none detected"; unresolvable collision -> human gate]
## Temporal flags
[provision version, vacatio legis / application date, transitional rules -
or "none"]
## For the human gate
[what needs a lawyer's decision before an answer is generated]
Any article number not confirmed in a database this session gets the
[TO VERIFY] tag - never present a number from memory as certain.
Human gate
The source map is a research draft, not a legal answer. A qualified human:
- approves the temporal choice (event date vs today),
- resolves collisions the rules cannot close (especially national
constitution vs EU primacy),
- judges whether a case-law line is current,
- takes responsibility for the answer built on this map.
Nothing goes to a client on the strength of the map alone.
Companion skills
- citation-grounding-pl - next step: verify that fetched quotes and
citations are real.
- legal-request-router-pl - the layer above the result: which control
path (plain answer / grounding / adversarial debate / audit bundle).
- saos-orzecznictwo, eu-sparql-search - the connectors this map
routes to.
- legal-data-hunter-pl - when a layer has no connector and a data source
must be found first.
1---2name: authority-triage-en3description: Routes source authority BEFORE a legal answer is generated - maps an EU or member-state legal question onto source layers (EU primary law, general principles, Charter, regulations, directives with transposition check, decisions, CJEU case law, national constitution-statute-regulation chain, national apex courts, soft law from EDPB/ESMA/EBA), sets the verification order, checks collision rules and points to the right MCP connector for each layer. Use when: "where do I check this", "what is the source hierarchy", "which source prevails", "where do I start the research", "map the sources for this question", before any legal research without one obvious source.4license: Apache-2.05---67# Authority Triage EN - route the source before the answer89## Philosophy1011Before a legal answer exists, you need to know which source controls it.12A model that starts from the conclusion and then shops for a provision works13in the wrong order - first the layer map, then the research, then the thesis.1415This skill is the layer BEFORE grounding. Three skills, three jobs:1617- **authority-triage-en** (this skill) says WHERE to look and IN WHAT ORDER,18- **citation-grounding-pl** verifies WHETHER a quote and citation are real,19- **legal-request-router-pl** decides WHAT level of control the result gets.2021The skill gives no legal advice. It produces a source map and a verification22order. The output is a draft that goes through the human gate.2324## When to use2526- An EU or member-state legal question with no single obvious source27 ("can a controller...", "is this clause enforceable...", "what sanctions28 apply under...").29- The user asks directly: where to check this, what prevails, where to start,30 what the hierarchy is.31- Before firing connectors - so queries follow the layer order instead of32 hitting databases at random.33- Whenever a directive may be in play (transposition status changes the34 answer) or two instruments may collide.3536## What it does NOT do3738- Does not verify quote content or citation existence - that is39 citation-grounding-pl.40- Does not assess stakes or pick a control path - that is41 legal-request-router-pl.42- Does not answer the legal question on the merits - it delivers a map,43 not a conclusion.44- Does not fetch sources itself - it names the connector, the connector fetches.45- Does not resolve a national-constitution vs EU-primacy standoff - that46 collision is flagged to the human.4748## Layer map4950### Layer 1 - EU primary law5152| # | Source | Notes |53|---|---|---|54| 1 | Treaties (TEU, TFEU) | the constitutional frame of the EU legal order |55| 2 | Charter of Fundamental Rights | same rank as the Treaties (Art. 6(1) TEU); binds member states when implementing EU law (Art. 51 CFR) |56| 3 | General principles of EU law | proportionality, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, effectiveness - developed by the CJEU |5758### Layer 2 - EU secondary law5960| Instrument | How it binds | Research consequence |61|---|---|---|62| Regulation | directly applicable in all member states, no transposition | read the regulation itself; national law only fills opening clauses |63| Directive | binding as to result; member states transpose | ALWAYS run the transposition check: which national act implements it, was the deadline met; after the deadline, vertical direct effect is possible if the provision is clear, precise and unconditional |64| Decision | binding on its addressees | check who the addressee is before citing it against anyone else |6566Primacy: on collision between national law and EU law, EU law prevails67(Costa v ENEL, 6/64); direct effect since Van Gend en Loos (26/62).68A collision between EU law and a national constitution is not resolved69here - flag it to the human.7071### Layer 3 - case law7273| Court | Authority status |74|---|---|75| CJEU | interpretation of EU law binds national courts; preliminary rulings under Art. 267 TFEU; no formal stare decisis, but settled case law controls in practice |76| National apex courts | supreme / cassation courts and constitutional courts; authority without formal precedent in most civil-law systems - weigh whether the ruling is an isolated decision or a settled line |77| ECtHR | binds the respondent state in the case; the Strasbourg line steers ECHR interpretation across all parties |7879### Layer 4 - national chain8081For every member state involved, map the same chain:82constitution -> statutes -> executive regulations -> local acts.83Internal administrative acts bind the administration, not the citizen.84The exact chain is national - if the member state is unknown, ask; if the85national provision cannot be confirmed in a database this session, tag it86[TO VERIFY].8788### Layer 5 - soft law (not a source of law; reliance on it can shield the addressee)8990| Instrument | Body |91|---|---|92| Guidelines, opinions, binding decisions under Art. 65 GDPR | EDPB |93| Guidelines, Q&As, technical standards drafts | ESMA |94| Guidelines, opinions, Q&As | EBA |95| National regulator guidance | e.g. data-protection and financial-market authorities |9697Soft law never wins a collision with a statute or a regulation. Cite it as98regulator practice, clearly separated from the norm.99100## Workflow1011021. **Classify the question into layers.** Which layers can control the103 answer? Usually 2-3 (e.g. GDPR: EU regulation + national act filling the104 opening clauses + EDPB guidelines + CJEU case law).1052. **Set the verification order.** Top layer down: the higher norm frames the106 question before you read the implementing act or regulator practice.107 Soft law is read LAST, against the norm.1083. **Check collisions.** Rules: lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior109 (but a later general norm does not displace an earlier special one) plus110 EU primacy over national statutes. For directives, the collision check111 includes the transposition gap: national act missing, late or defective.112 A collision the rules cannot close goes to the human gate.1134. **Point to the connector for each layer:**114115 | Layer | Connector |116 |---|---|117 | EU law, CJEU case law (EUR-Lex / Cellar) | eu-sparql-search |118 | National legislation (ELI) | national *-eli-mcp from the MateMatic line (e.g. sejm-eli-mcp for PL) |119 | EU digital / data / cyber compliance acts | mcp-eu-compliance |120 | French legislation and codes | mcp-fr-legal |121 | German legislation | mcp-de-legal [TO VERIFY availability - pre-release] |1221235. **Flag the temporal version.** Three questions, every time:124 - law as of the DATE OF THE EVENT or as of today? (dispute research =125 version in force at the event; compliance = version in force now),126 - vacatio legis / application date - EU acts often split entry into force127 and date of application (the GDPR pattern: in force 2016, applying 2018),128 - transitional provisions - does the old norm still govern pending cases.129130## Output format131132Return exactly this template:133134```markdown135# Source map: [the question in one sentence]136137Law as of: [event date / today - justify the choice]138Member state(s): [list or "EU level only"]139140| Layer | Act / source | Connector | Verification status | Flags |141|---|---|---|---|---|142| EU primary | [treaty / Charter article] | eu-sparql-search | verified / to check | [Art. 51 CFR scope?] |143| EU secondary | [regulation / directive / decision + article] | eu-sparql-search / mcp-eu-compliance | verified / to check | [transposition? direct effect? application date?] |144| CJEU | [case, e.g. C-xxx/xx] | eu-sparql-search | to check | [settled line or isolated ruling?] |145| National statute | [act + article] | *-eli-mcp / mcp-fr-legal (DE: [TO VERIFY availability]) | verified / to check | [temporal version, vacatio legis] |146| National courts | [apex court ruling] | national connector / manual | to check | [authority without precedent] |147| Soft law | [EDPB / ESMA / EBA guideline] | manual | to check | [not a source of law] |148149## Verification order1501. [source] - because [hierarchy rule]1512. ...152153## Collisions154[lex superior / specialis / posterior / EU primacy / transposition gap -155or "none detected"; unresolvable collision -> human gate]156157## Temporal flags158[provision version, vacatio legis / application date, transitional rules -159or "none"]160161## For the human gate162[what needs a lawyer's decision before an answer is generated]163```164165Any article number not confirmed in a database this session gets the166[TO VERIFY] tag - never present a number from memory as certain.167168## Human gate169170The source map is a research draft, not a legal answer. A qualified human:171172- approves the temporal choice (event date vs today),173- resolves collisions the rules cannot close (especially national174 constitution vs EU primacy),175- judges whether a case-law line is current,176- takes responsibility for the answer built on this map.177178Nothing goes to a client on the strength of the map alone.179180## Companion skills181182- **citation-grounding-pl** - next step: verify that fetched quotes and183 citations are real.184- **legal-request-router-pl** - the layer above the result: which control185 path (plain answer / grounding / adversarial debate / audit bundle).186- **saos-orzecznictwo**, **eu-sparql-search** - the connectors this map187 routes to.188- **legal-data-hunter-pl** - when a layer has no connector and a data source189 must be found first.
matematicsolutions