Evidence Argument Chain

Chinese source (authoritative): ../../skills/evidence-argument-chain/SKILL.md

Organizing the Evidence–Argument Chain

Overview Table

Legal Disclaimer

Important notice: This skill file provides only methodological guidance for AI agents on organizing evidence and building argument chains; it does not constitute legal advice on any specific case. Final determination of evidence rests with the People's Court (人民法院). In actual cases, evidence organization should be professionally judged by a practicing lawyer based on the specific facts. When using this skill, the AI agent should clearly label its output as auxiliary analysis and advise the user to consult a qualified legal professional.

I. Core Concepts

1.1 Definition of the Evidence–Argument Chain

An evidence–argument chain means decomposing a legal claim into its constituent elements (构成要件), then mapping concrete evidence item-by-item onto each element, forming a complete logical chain of "claim → elements → evidence → probative value."

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                 Ultimate Legal Claim                  │
│         (e.g., defendant shall compensate loss)       │
├─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────────┤
│ Element A│ Element B│ Element C│ Element D  │
│ Breach   │ Damage   │ Causation│ Grounds for│
│ of fact  │ result   │          │ liability  │
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│ Evid. A1 │ Evid. B1 │ Evid. C1 │ Evid. D1   │
│ Evid. A2 │ Evid. B2 │ Evid. C2 │ (to be     │
│ Evid. A3 │          │          │  supplemented)│
├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│ Probative│ Probative│ Probative│ Probative │
│ value:   │ value:   │ value:   │ value:    │
│ Strong   │ Strong   │ Medium   │ Weak      │
└─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────────┘

1.2 Key Terms

1.3 Hierarchical Structure of the Evidence–Argument Chain

Layer 1: Ultimate Claim
  │
  ├── Layer 2: Sub-claims / Disputed Issues
  │     │
  │     ├── Layer 3: Legal Elements (构成要件)
  │     │     │
  │     │     ├── Layer 4: Facts to Prove (待证事实)
  │     │     │     │
  │     │     │     ├── Layer 5: Evidence (证据材料)
  │     │     │     │     │
  │     │     │     │     └── Layer 6: Probative-Value Assessment (证明力评估)

II. Complete Workflow

Stage One: Claim Inventory and Element Decomposition

Goal: Clarify all legal claims and decompose each claim into its legal constituent elements.

Step 1: Identify and List All Legal Claims

• Start from the party's claims for relief or grounds of defense
• Distinguish primary claims from auxiliary (fallback / 备位) claims
• Clarify the legal basis of each claim (basis of the right of claim / basis of the right of defense — 请求权基础 / 抗辩权基础)

【Operational Template】
Claim ID: C-01
Claim content: Defendant shall pay plaintiff liquidated damages of RMB 500,000
Legal basis: Civil Code (《民法典》) Arts. 577, 585
Claim type: □ Primary claim / □ Fallback claim (备位主张)
Party bearing burden of proof: Plaintiff

Step 2: Decompose Legal Constituent Elements

• Extract elements from the legal norm (the claim-basis norm — 请求权基础规范)
• Distinguish positive elements (to be proved by the asserting party) from negative elements (requiring contrary proof by the other party)
• Annotate allocation of the burden of proof

【Operational Template】
Element decomposition for Claim C-01:
┌──────┬──────────────────────┬──────────────┬────────────────┐
│ Elem.│    Element content    │ Burden bearer│ Element nature │
│  ID  │                       │              │                │
├──────┼──────────────────────┼──────────────┼────────────────┤
│ E-01 │ Valid formation of    │   Plaintiff  │ Positive element│
│      │ the contract          │              │                │
│ E-02 │ Defendant's breach    │   Plaintiff  │ Positive element│
│ E-03 │ Liquidated-damages    │   Plaintiff  │ Positive element│
│      │ clause is valid       │              │                │
│ E-04 │ Liquidated-damages    │ Defendant    │ Negative element│
│      │ amount is reasonable  │ (contrary    │                │
│      │                       │  proof)      │                │
└──────┴──────────────────────┴──────────────┴────────────────┘

Step 3: Determine Facts to Be Proved

• Convert each element into concrete propositions of fact to be proved
• Distinguish undisputed facts from disputed facts
• Annotate the degree of dispute for disputed facts

【Operational Template】
Facts to be proved for Element E-02 "Defendant's breach":
  F-02-1: Defendant failed to deliver goods by the agreed deadline
          (30 June 2024) [Disputed — High]
  F-02-2: Goods delivered by defendant did not meet contractual quality
          standards [Disputed — Medium]
  F-02-3: Defendant unilaterally changed the place of delivery without
          plaintiff's consent [Undisputed]

Stage Two: Evidence Inventory and Classification

Goal: Fully inventory existing evidentiary materials and classify them systematically.

Step 4: Compile the Evidence List

• Register every item of evidentiary material one by one
• Annotate basic attributes (type, source, form, original / copy)
• Preliminarily assess authenticity, lawfulness, and relevance (the "three attributes" — 三性)

【Evidence Registration Template】
┌──────┬────────────────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────────────────┐
│ Evid.│ Evidence name  │ Type │Source│ Form │ Three-attribute  │
│  ID  │                │      │      │      │ preliminary      │
├──────┼────────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────────────────┤
│ P-01 │ Purchase       │ Doc. │ Both │ Orig.│ Auth✓ Law✓ Rel✓ │
│      │ contract       │      │parties│     │                  │
│ P-02 │ Delivery note  │ Doc. │ Pl.  │ Copy │ Auth? Law✓ Rel✓ │
│ P-03 │ QC inspection  │ Doc. │ Third│ Orig.│ Auth✓ Law✓ Rel✓ │
│      │ report         │      │party │      │                  │
│ P-04 │ WeChat chat    │ Elec.│ Pl.  │ Screen│ Auth? Law? Rel✓│
│      │ records        │ data │      │ shot │                  │
│ P-05 │ Witness Zhang  │ Wit. │ Pl.'s│ Writ-│ Auth? Law✓ Rel✓ │
│      │ testimony      │ test.│ side │ ten  │                  │
└──────┴────────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────────────────┘

Step 5: Group Evidence

Group evidence preliminarily by direction of proof:

• Positive evidence: Supports one's own claims
• Adverse evidence: May be used by the other side against oneself
• Neutral evidence: Proves background facts
• Corroborating evidence (补强证据): Used to strengthen the probative value of other evidence

Stage Three: Evidence–Claim Linkage (Core Step)

Goal: Establish precise correspondence between evidence and constituent elements.

Step 6: Match Evidence Element by Element

This is the core operation of the entire process. For each constituent element, retrieve available evidence one by one:

【Linkage Operation Rules】
1. One item of evidence may be linked to multiple elements (one evidence, multiple uses)
2. One element should preferably be supported by multiple items of evidence (multiple evidence, one element)
3. When linking, the specific purpose of proof of that evidence for that element must be stated
4. Annotate the mode of proof for that element (direct / indirect / corroborating)

【Evidence–Element Linkage Matrix】

              │ E-01       │ E-02       │ E-03            │ E-04
              │ Contract   │ Breach     │ Liquidated-     │ Amount
              │ formation  │            │ damages clause  │ reasonable
──────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼─────────────────┼────────
P-01 Purchase │ ★ Direct   │ ○ Indirect │ ★ Direct        │ ○ Indirect
     contract │            │            │                 │
P-02 Delivery │            │ ★ Direct   │                 │
     note     │            │            │                 │
P-03 QC report│            │ ★ Direct   │                 │
P-04 WeChat   │ ○ Corrob.  │ ★ Direct   │                 │
     records  │            │            │                 │
P-05 Witness  │            │ ○ Corrob.  │                 │
     testimony│            │            │                 │

Legend: ★ Direct proof  ○ Indirect proof / corroboration  Blank = no link

Step 7: Draft Purpose-of-Proof Statements

Write a concrete purpose of proof for each linkage:

【Purpose-of-Proof Statement Template】
Evidence P-04 (WeChat chat records) → Element E-02 (breach)
  Purpose of proof: To prove that on 5 July 2024 the defendant admitted
                    in WeChat that "the goods have indeed not been shipped yet,"
                    directly proving failure to deliver by the agreed deadline.
  Mode of proof: Direct proof
  Key content: On 5 July 2024 at 14:23, Li Mou, legal representative of the
               defendant, sent: "Sorry, there was a problem at the factory;
               the goods have indeed not been shipped yet"
  Strength of proof: Strong (party's admission — 当事人自认)

Step 8: Build Evidence Chains

When a single item of evidence is insufficient to fully prove an element, build an evidence chain:

【Evidence-Chain Construction Template】
Evidence chain for Element E-02 (defendant failed to deliver goods on time):

  P-01 (Purchase contract) ──→ Establishes delivery deadline as 30 June 2024
        │
        ↓
  P-02 (Delivery note) ──→ Shows actual shipment date as 15 July 2024
        │
        ↓
  P-04 (WeChat records) ──→ Defendant admitted on 5 July that goods not yet shipped
        │
        ↓
  P-05 (Witness testimony) ──→ Warehouse manager confirms goods received only on 15 July

  Chain logic: Contractual deadline (P-01) + Defendant's admission of delay (P-04)
               + Actual shipment record (P-02) + Witness corroboration (P-05)
               = Fully proves defendant delivered 15 days late

  Evidence-chain completeness assessment: ★★★★★ (Complete; multiple items corroborate)

Stage Four: Probative-Value Assessment and Gap Analysis

Goal: Assess the strength of evidentiary support for each element and identify weak links.

Step 9: Assess Probative Value Element by Element

【Probative-Value Assessment Criteria】

Grade   │ Standard                                          │ Notes
────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────
★★★★★ │ Multiple direct evidence items corroborate; no    │ Extremely strong
        │ contradictions                                    │
★★★★☆ │ Direct evidence + corroboration; essentially no   │ Strong
        │ contradictions                                    │
★★★☆☆ │ Direct evidence without corroboration, or only an │ Medium
        │ indirect evidence chain                           │
★★☆☆☆ │ Only a single indirect item, or evidence has      │ Relatively weak
        │ defects                                           │
★☆☆☆☆ │ Almost no evidence or severe insufficiency        │ Extremely weak

【Element Probative-Value Summary】
┌──────┬──────────────────────┬──────────┬──────┬──────────────────────┐
│ Elem.│    Element content    │ # support│ Prob.│    Risk notice        │
│  ID  │                       │  items   │value │                      │
├──────┼──────────────────────┼──────────┼──────┼──────────────────────┤
│ E-01 │ Valid contract        │    2     │★★★★★│ No material risk      │
│      │ formation             │          │      │                      │
│ E-02 │ Defendant's breach    │    4     │★★★★★│ Delivery note is a    │
│      │                       │          │      │ copy                 │
│ E-03 │ Liquidated-damages    │    1     │★★★★☆│ Check standard-form   │
│      │ clause valid          │          │      │ clause issues         │
│ E-04 │ Liquidated-damages    │    1     │★★☆☆☆│ ⚠ Evidence weak       │
│      │ amount reasonable     │          │      │                      │
└──────┴──────────────────────┴──────────┴──────┴──────────────────────┘

Step 10: Identify Evidence Gaps and Remedial Recommendations

【Evidence-Gap Analysis Template】
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ⚠ Evidence-Gap Warning                                        │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Gap location: Element E-04 (liquidated-damages amount        │
│               reasonable)                                    │
│ Gap description: Lack of direct evidence proving the amount  │
│                  of actual loss                              │
│ Risk level: High (defendant may apply to reduce liquidated   │
│             damages)                                         │
│ Remedial options:                                            │
│   Option A: Supplement financial loss calculation sheet and  │
│             related vouchers                                 │
│   Option B: Apply for judicial appraisal of actual loss      │
│   Option C: Submit loss-reference data from similar industry │
│             breach cases                                     │
│   Option D: Adjust litigation strategy; reduce the claimed   │
│             liquidated-damages amount                        │
│ Priority: Option A > Option B > Option C > Option D          │
│ Deadline reminder: Complete supplementation before the end   │
│                    of the evidence-production period         │
│                    (举证期限)                                 │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Stage Five: Argument-Chain Integration and Optimization

Goal: Integrate scattered evidence–element correspondences into a complete argument chain and optimize it.

Step 11: Draw the Argument-Chain Panorama

Integrate all claims, elements, and evidence into one complete argument-chain panorama (see Output Format Templates below).

Step 12: Optimize Argumentative Sequence

【Principles for Optimizing Argumentative Sequence】
1. Strong before weak: Put the best-supported elements first to build credibility
2. Simple before complex: Clear, straightforward facts first; complex disputes later
3. Chronological thread: Organize by the order in which facts occurred for ease of understanding
4. Logical progression: Arrange according to the progressive relationships of legal logic
5. Offense and defense together: Anticipate the other side's likely rebuttals and pre-position responsive evidence

Step 13: Anticipate Opposing Rebuttals and Prepare Responses

【Offense–Defense Anticipation Template】
┌──────────────┬────────────────┬────────────────────┬──────────┐
│ Own claim    │ Likely opposing│ Responsive evidence│ Response │
│              │ rebuttal       │ / strategy         │ strength │
├──────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────────┼──────────┤
│ Defendant    │ Force majeure  │ P-04 WeChat shows  │ Strong   │
│ late delivery│ (pandemic)     │ factory's own      │          │
│              │                │ problem            │          │
├──────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────────┼──────────┤
│ Liquidated   │ Amount too     │ Supplement actual- │ Medium   │
│ damages      │ high; should   │ loss evidence      │ (to be   │
│ RMB 500,000  │ be reduced     │                    │  suppl.) │
└──────────────┴────────────────┴────────────────────┴──────────┘

Stage Six: Output and Delivery

Step 14: Generate Structured Output Documents

Generate the final evidence–argument chain document according to the "Output Format Templates" below.

Step 15: Quality Check

Verify item by item against the "Quality Checklist" below.

III. Common Fields and Sources of Law

3.1 Element-Decomposition Reference by Case Type

3.2 Sources of Law for Burden-of-Proof Allocation

IV. Validation and Screening Rules

4.1 Validity Validation of Evidence Linkages

Each evidence–element linkage must pass the following five validations:

4.2 Completeness Screening Rules for Evidence Chains

【Completeness Check Rules】

Rule 1: Each positive element has at least 1 item of direct evidence
  → If not met: Mark as "Evidence gap — Severe"

Rule 2: Key elements (those corresponding to disputed issues) have at least 2 items of evidence
  → If not met: Mark as "Evidence gap — Medium"

Rule 3: Each item of direct evidence has at least 1 corroborating item
  → If not met: Mark as "Evidence weak — Needs corroboration"

Rule 4: No logical breaks in the evidence chain
  → If not met: Mark as "Logical break — Needs repair"

Rule 5: No "orphaned evidence" left unlinked
  → If not met: Re-examine that item's probative value or remove it

4.3 Logical Validation of the Argument Chain

【Logical Validation Checklist】
□ Whether claims match legal grounds (whether the claim basis — 请求权基础 — is correct)
□ Whether element decomposition is complete (whether necessary elements are omitted)
□ Whether facts to be proved cover the full meaning of the elements
□ Whether evidence proves the facts to be proved (and not other facts)
□ Whether contradictions exist among items of evidence (self-contradiction in one's own evidence)
□ Whether the argument chain contains circular reasoning
□ Whether the reasoning process contains jumps (missing intermediate links)
□ Whether burden-of-proof allocation is correct

V. Output Format Templates

5.1 Complete Output Document Structure

# Evidence–Argument Chain Analysis Report

## Basic Information
- Case name: [Case name]
- Cause of action: [Cause of action]
- Analysis date: [Date]
- Client's position: [Plaintiff / Defendant / Third party]

## I. Claim System

### Claim C-01: [Claim content]
- Legal basis: [Statute]
- Burden of proof: [Plaintiff / Defendant]
- Claim type: [Primary / Fallback]

### Claim C-02: [Claim content]
- ...

## II. Element Decomposition

### Constituent elements of Claim C-01
| Element ID | Element content | Burden bearer | Degree of dispute |
|------------|-----------------|---------------|-------------------|
| E-01 | ... | ... | High / Medium / Low / Undisputed |

## III. Evidence List
| Evidence ID | Evidence name | Type | Source | Form | Three-attribute assessment |
|-------------|---------------|------|--------|------|----------------------------|
| P-01 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

## IV. Evidence–Element Linkage Matrix
[Matrix table]

## V. Detailed Evidence Chains by Element

### Element E-01: [Element content]
#### Facts to be proved
- F-01-1: ...
- F-01-2: ...

#### Corresponding evidence and purposes of proof
| Evidence | Purpose of proof | Mode of proof | Strength of proof |
|----------|------------------|---------------|-------------------|
| P-xx | ... | Direct / Indirect / Corroborating | Strong / Medium / Weak |

#### Evidence-chain diagram
[Chain description]

#### Probative-value assessment: ★★★★☆
#### Risk notice: [If any]

## VI. Evidence-Gap Analysis
| Gap location | Gap description | Risk level | Remedial options |
|--------------|-----------------|------------|------------------|

## VII. Offense–Defense Anticipation
| Own claim | Likely opposing rebuttal | Response plan | Response strength |
|-----------|--------------------------|---------------|-------------------|

## VIII. Recommended Argumentative Sequence
[Suggested order of developing the argument and reasons]

## IX. Overall Assessment
- Overall evidentiary sufficiency: [Rating]
- Strongest link: [Explanation]
- Weakest link: [Explanation]
- Key recommendations: [1–3 core recommendations]

## Confidence Statement
[See Confidence Annotation System]

VI. Confidence Annotation System

6.1 Overall Analysis Confidence

6.2 Item-Level Linkage Confidence

Annotate confidence for each evidence–element linkage:

【Confidence Annotation Format】
P-01 → E-02 [Confidence: High 🟢]
  Reason: Original contract directly states the delivery deadline; authenticity undisputed

P-04 → E-02 [Confidence: Medium 🟡]
  Reason: WeChat screenshot not notarized; other side may challenge authenticity
  Suggestion: Recommend notarized preservation or blockchain evidence preservation

P-05 → E-02 [Confidence: Low 🔴]
  Reason: Witness is an employee of plaintiff's company; interest relationship may weaken
          probative value
  Suggestion: Seek a disinterested third-party witness

6.3 Factors Affecting Confidence

Factors that raise confidence:
  + Evidence is an original
  + Evidence has been notarized
  + Multiple items corroborate one another
  + Admission by the opposing party
  + Documents issued by state organs
  + Legal relationships simple and clear
  + Clear judicial interpretation or guiding case

Factors that lower confidence:
  - Evidence is a copy / screenshot
  - Single source of evidence
  - Witness has an interest relationship with a party
  - Electronic data not preserved
  - Legal application is disputed
  - Fact-finding relies on inference rather than direct evidence
  - Contrary evidence exists
  - Case involves novel legal issues

VII. Common Errors and Prevention

7.1 Fatal-Error Table

7.2 Common Traps

VIII. Special-Scenario Handling

8.1 Concurrent / Alternative Claims (多主张竞合)

When multiple alternative claim bases exist (e.g., concurrence of breach liability and tort liability):

Handling method:
1. Build an independent evidence–argument chain for each claim basis
2. Compare evidentiary sufficiency across chains
3. Annotate shared evidence (items that can support multiple claims)
4. Recommend the best-supported claim basis as the primary claim
5. Treat other claim bases as fallback claims (备位主张)

【Concurrence Analysis Template】
┌─────────────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────────┐
│                 │ Breach-liability │ Tort-liability   │
│                 │ path             │ path             │
├─────────────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ # of elements   │        4         │        4         │
│ Existing evidence│      100%       │       75%        │
│ coverage        │                  │                  │
│ Weakest element │ Loss amount (★★★)│ Fault proof (★★) │
│ Difficulty of   │     Medium       │       High       │
│ proof           │                  │                  │
│ Scope of        │ Foreseeability   │ Full compensation│
│ recovery        │ limit            │                  │
│ Recommendation  │ ★ Primary claim  │ Fallback claim   │
└─────────────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────────┘

8.2 Burden-of-Proof Reversal Scenarios

Handling method:
1. Clearly identify which elements are subject to burden reversal
2. For reversed elements, analyze contrary evidence the other side may submit
3. Prepare evidence to re-rebut the other side's contrary evidence
4. Note: Even with burden reversal, one's own side must still provide preliminary evidence

【Reversal Example: Medical Damage Liability】
  Patient must prove: ① Fact of treatment ② Damage consequence
  Medical provider must prove: ③ Treatment was without fault ④ No causation between
                               treatment and damage

  → Focus of patient's evidence chain: medical records, damage appraisal
  → Anticipate medical provider's contrary evidence: medical charts, treatment norms,
    expert opinions
  → Prepare re-rebuttal: authenticity challenges to charts; third-party appraisal

8.3 Electronic-Evidence Scenarios

Handling method:
1. Pay special attention to proof of authenticity of electronic data
2. Recommend notarized preservation or blockchain evidence preservation
3. Attend to integrity of electronic data (do not clip fragments)
4. Prepare explanations of generation, storage, and transmission of the electronic data

【Electronic-Evidence Corroboration Checklist】
□ Has notarized preservation been performed?
□ Is there hash-value verification?
□ Has the full context been preserved?
□ Can the generating subject of the electronic data be proved?
□ Is there other evidence corroborating the electronic data content?
□ Does it comply with the Electronic Signature Law (《电子签名法》) and related rules?

8.4 Lost / Hard-to-Obtain Evidence Scenarios

Handling method:
1. Apply for court investigation and evidence collection (Civil Procedure Law Art. 67(2))
2. Apply for an order to produce documentary evidence (Provisions on Civil Evidence Art. 45)
3. Invoke presumption from obstruction of proof (Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law Art. 112)
4. Substitute an indirect evidence chain for direct evidence
5. Use empirical rules (经验法则) and factual presumptions

【Alternative Proof-Path Template】
Original evidence: [Lost / unobtainable evidence]
Alternative options:
  Path A: Apply for court collection → Feasibility [High/Med/Low] → Est. time [X days]
  Path B: Indirect evidence chain → Evidence needed [list] → Probative value [assess]
  Path C: Obstruction presumption → Preconditions [met?] → Success rate [assess]
  Path D: Factual presumption → Presumption basis [explain] → Risk of opposing
          rebuttal [assess]

8.5 Collective Litigation / Multi-Party Scenarios

Handling method:
1. Distinguish common evidence from individual evidence
2. Build an independent evidence sub-chain for each party
3. Annotate sharing relationships among items of evidence
4. Note how conflicts of interest among parties affect use of evidence

【Multi-Party Evidence Matrix】
              │ Party A │ Party B │ Party C │ Shared
──────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────
P-01 Contract │   ✓     │   ✓     │         │  ✓
P-02 Payment  │   ✓     │         │         │
     voucher  │         │         │         │
P-03 Meeting  │         │   ✓     │   ✓     │
     minutes  │         │         │         │
P-04 Appraisal│   ✓     │   ✓     │   ✓     │  ✓
     report   │         │         │         │

IX. Quality Checklist

9.1 Completeness Check

【Must-Complete Items】
□ 1. All legal claims have been listed
□ 2. Legal basis for each claim has been annotated
□ 3. Constituent elements of each claim have been fully decomposed
□ 4. Burden of proof has been correctly allocated
□ 5. All evidence has been registered in the list
□ 6. Three attributes of each item have been preliminarily assessed
□ 7. Evidence–element linkage matrix has been completed
□ 8. Purpose of proof for each linkage has been drafted
□ 9. Probative value of each element has been assessed
□ 10. Evidence gaps have been identified and remedial options proposed

9.2 Quality Check

【Quality Validation Items】
□ 11. No omitted constituent elements
□ 12. No incorrect burden-of-proof allocation
□ 13. No incorrect evidence–element linkages
□ 14. No self-contradictory evidence
□ 15. No orphaned unlinked evidence (or reasons explained)
□ 16. Key elements supported by multiple items of evidence
□ 17. No logical breaks in evidence chains
□ 18. Likely opposing rebuttals have been considered
□ 19. Argumentative sequence is reasonable
□ 20. Confidence annotations are accurate

9.3 Formal Check

【Formal Norm Items】
□ 21. Evidence IDs are uniformly standardized
□ 22. Element IDs are uniformly standardized
□ 23. Purposes of proof are clear and concrete
□ 24. Risk notices are prominently marked
□ 25. Output document structure is complete

X. Complete Examples

Example One: Simple Scenario — Private Lending Dispute (民间借贷纠纷)

Case Brief

On 15 March 2023, Zhang San borrowed RMB 100,000 from Li Si, agreeing on an annual interest rate of 8% and a one-year term, to be repaid by 15 March 2024. Zhang San issued an IOU (借条); Li Si paid the loan by bank transfer. After maturity, Zhang San did not repay. Li Si sued seeking repayment of principal RMB 100,000 plus interest.

Evidence–Argument Chain Analysis

I. Claim System

Claim C-01: Defendant Zhang San shall repay plaintiff Li Si loan principal of RMB 100,000
  Legal basis: Civil Code Art. 675
  Burden of proof: Plaintiff
  Claim type: Primary claim

Claim C-02: Defendant Zhang San shall pay loan interest (calculated at 8% per annum)
  Legal basis: Civil Code Arts. 674, 680
  Burden of proof: Plaintiff
  Claim type: Primary claim

II. Element Decomposition

Constituent elements of Claim C-01:
┌──────┬──────────────────────────────┬──────────────┬────────┐
│ Elem.│      Element content          │ Burden bearer│ Dispute│
│  ID  │                               │              │ degree │
├──────┼──────────────────────────────┼──────────────┼────────┤
│ E-01 │ Lending agreement (parties    │   Plaintiff  │  Low   │
│      │ reached agreement to lend)    │              │        │
│ E-02 │ Delivery of funds (loan       │   Plaintiff  │  Low   │
│      │ actually delivered)           │              │        │
│ E-03 │ Repayment period has matured  │   Plaintiff  │  None  │
│ E-04 │ Defendant has not repaid      │   Plaintiff  │  Low   │
└──────┴──────────────────────────────┴──────────────┴────────┘

Constituent elements of Claim C-02:
┌──────┬──────────────────────────────┬──────────────┬────────┐
│ Elem.│      Element content          │ Burden bearer│ Dispute│
│  ID  │                               │              │ degree │
├──────┼──────────────────────────────┼──────────────┼────────┤
│ E-05 │ Interest agreement is clear   │   Plaintiff  │  Low   │
│ E-06 │ Rate does not exceed statutory│   Plaintiff  │  None  │
│      │ cap                           │              │        │
└──────┴──────────────────────────────┴──────────────┴────────┘

III. Evidence List

┌──────┬────────────────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────────────────┐
│ Evid.│ Evidence name  │ Type │Source│ Form │ Three-attribute  │
│  ID  │                │      │      │      │ assessment       │
├──────┼────────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────────────────┤
│ P-01 │ Original IOU   │ Doc. │ Def. │ Orig.│ Auth✓ Law✓ Rel✓ │
│ P-02 │ Bank transfer  │ Doc. │ Bank │ Orig.│ Auth✓ Law✓ Rel✓ │
│      │ record         │      │      │      │    

…(truncated)