# Authority Triage En

> 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.

- Skill: `matematicsolutions/authority-triage-en` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add matematicsolutions/authority-triage-en`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/matematicsolutions/authority-triage-en/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- License: Apache-2.0
- Author: matematicsolutions (https://skillmd.com/u/matematicsolutions)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/matematicsolutions/authority-triage-en

---


# 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

1. **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).
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **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] |

5. **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:

```markdown
# 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.