Other Legal Retrieval

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

Other Legal Retrieval

Systematic retrieval of legislative background, regulatory cases, local guiding opinions, and other auxiliary legal information

I. Overview Table

II. Legal Disclaimer

⚠️ Important

1. Information retrieved by this skill mostly belongs to informal legal sources or auxiliary materials, with hierarchical effect lower than statutes, administrative regulations, judicial interpretations, and other formal sources. When citing, clearly label nature and hierarchical effect.
2. Legislative background materials reflect the legislator’s subjective intent and, in interpretation, are materials for historical interpretation; they cannot replace the foundational role of textual interpretation.
3. Local guiding opinions, meeting minutes, and similar documents have territorial scope; do not apply them across regions without distinction.
4. Regulatory cases and administrative penalty decisions lack precedential binding force; they are only references for understanding enforcement approaches.
5. When citing academic views, note the distinction between prevailing and minority views; do not present individual scholars’ views as settled conclusions.
6. Foreign-law materials are for comparative reference only and do not constitute legal authority under Chinese law.

III. Core Concepts

3.1 Scope of "Other Retrieval"

"Other retrieval" is supplementary retrieval relative to statutory retrieval (retrieving currently effective legal norms) and case retrieval (retrieving judgments and guiding cases). Retrieval targets fall into ten categories:

3.2 Hierarchy of Effect

Formal sources (directly applicable)
├── Constitution
├── Statutes (法律)
├── Administrative regulations (行政法规)
├── Local regulations (地方性法规)
├── Autonomous and separate regulations (自治条例和单行条例)
├── Judicial interpretations (司法解释)
└── Departmental rules / local government rules (部门规章 / 地方政府规章)

Informal sources / auxiliary materials (reference use)  ← this skill’s retrieval scope
├── Tier 1: Quasi-normative documents
│   ├── Meeting minutes (e.g., Jiumin Minutes)
│   ├── Local high-court trial guiding opinions
│   └── Departmental normative documents
├── Tier 2: Official interpretive materials
│   ├── Legislative background (draft explanations, etc.)
│   ├── Departmental-rule drafting notes and policy interpretations
│   └── Law-enforcement inspection reports
├── Tier 3: Enforcement-practice materials
│   ├── Regulatory cases / administrative penalty decisions
│   ├── Regulatory Q&A / window guidance
│   └── Industry standards and technical norms
├── Tier 4: Doctrinal materials
│   ├── Prevailing academic views
│   ├── Personal writings of legislative participants
│   └── Comparative foreign-law materials
└── Tier 5: Other reference
    ├── Policy documents
    ├── White papers
    └── News reports and public information

3.3 Classification by Retrieval Purpose

IV. Complete Workflow

4.1 Overall Flow

[Step 1] Need identification and classification
        │
        ▼
[Step 2] Retrieval-strategy design
        │
        ▼
[Step 3] Multi-source information retrieval
        │
        ▼
[Step 4] Screening and verification
        │
        ▼
[Step 5] Hierarchical-effect labeling
        │
        ▼
[Step 6] Integration and output
        │
        ▼
[Step 7] Confidence assessment and risk warnings

4.2 Step Details

Step 1: Need Identification and Classification

Goal: Accurately identify which subcategory of "other retrieval" the user’s need falls into.

Operational points:

1. Parse the user question for key signal words:

   • "Why is it provided…" → legislative background
   • "How do regulators view…" / "Will we be penalized…" → regulatory cases
   • "How does Region XX provide…" / "Locally…" → local guiding opinions
   • "Industry practice is…" / "Usual practice…" → industry standards, regulatory practice
   • "How do foreign laws provide…" / "In comparative law…" → foreign-law materials
   • "How does scholarship view…" / "In theory…" → prevailing academic views
   • "Policy direction…" / "Future trends…" → policy documents

2. Confirm retrieval purpose (see §3.3 classification table).

3. Clarify time range:

   • Legislative background: enactment/amendment time of the corresponding law
   • Regulatory cases: usually recent 3–5 years
   • Local guiding opinions: confirm still effective
   • Policy documents: focus on latest releases

4. Clarify territorial scope:

   • Nationwide vs. specific province/city
   • Whether cross-regional comparison is needed

Step 2: Retrieval-Strategy Design

Goal: Design targeted retrieval plans by need category.

Category strategies:

Step 3: Multi-Source Information Retrieval

Goal: Execute retrieval per strategy and obtain original information.

Operational points:

1. Priority order: Official channels > authoritative databases > academic literature > other sources
2. Cross-verification: Confirm the same information through at least two independent sources
3. Full text: Prefer full documents over abstracts or second-hand paraphrases
4. Currency: Check whether still effective, amended, or repealed

Source priority matrix:

Priority 1 (official authoritative)
├── NPC and Standing Committee websites
├── State Council and ministry websites
├── SPC / SPP websites
├── Provincial people’s congress / government / high-court websites
└── National standards full-text disclosure system

Priority 2 (professional legal databases)
├── PKULaw (北大法宝)
├── Wolters Kluwer China (威科先行)
├── China Judgments Online
└── Credit China

Priority 3 (academic resources)
├── CNKI
├── Authoritative law textbooks
└── Core law journals

Priority 4 (other reference)
├── Law-firm research reports
├── Industry-association materials
└── News reports

Step 4: Screening and Verification

Goal: Verify authenticity, relevance, and currency of retrieved information.

Verification checklist:

• Source authenticity: From official or authoritative channels? Original source findable?
• Content completeness: Full text obtained? Risk of taking out of context?
• Currency / validity: Still effective? Amended, replaced, or repealed?
• Relevance match: Truly related to the user question? "Similar in form, different in substance"?
• Territorial applicability: Do local documents apply to the user’s territory?
• Version accuracy: Latest version? Multiple versions to distinguish?

Special verification scenarios:

Step 5: Hierarchical-Effect Labeling

Goal: Label hierarchical legal effect and reference value for each retrieved item.

Labeling system:

Step 6: Integration and Output

Goal: Integrate retrieved information in a structured format.

Integration principles:

1. Order by hierarchical effect: Higher-effect information first
2. Order by relevance: Most directly related to the user question first
3. Cite sources: Each item must have full citation (document name, issuing organ, date, document number)
4. Distinguish fact from evaluation: Present retrieved content objectively, clearly separated from the agent’s own analysis
5. Reveal contradictions: If sources conflict, expressly state and analyze causes

Step 7: Confidence Assessment and Risk Warnings

Goal: Overall reliability assessment of results and potential-risk warnings.

Assessment dimensions:

V. Common Fields and Source Mapping

5.1 Civil and Commercial

5.2 Financial Regulation

5.3 Administrative Law

5.4 Criminal Law

5.5 Labor Law

VI. Verification and Screening Rules

6.1 Admission Rules (all must be met)

6.2 Exclusion Rules (any one triggers exclusion)

6.3 Special Screening Rules

Legislative background screening:

• Prefer explanations corresponding to the final deliberation draft, not first-reading explanations
• If provisions were substantially amended during deliberation, present pre- and post-amendment legislative explanations to reveal reasons for change
• Clearly distinguish legislative participants’ personal writings from official legislative explanations

Regulatory-case screening:

• Prefer cases from the recent 3 years
• Prefer cases most factually similar to the user question
• Watch whether the penalty was changed/revoked on administrative reconsideration or litigation

Local guiding-opinion screening:

• Confirm territorial match with user need
• Confirm still effective after higher-law amendment
• If localities differ, present comparatively

VII. Output Format Templates

7.1 Standard Output Template

## Other Legal Retrieval Report

### I. Retrieval Summary

| Item | Content |
|------|------|
| Retrieval question | [precise statement of user question] |
| Retrieval purpose | [explore legislative purpose / determine enforcement approach / grasp local differences / ...] |
| Retrieval category | [legislative background / regulatory cases / local guiding opinions / ...] |
| Time range | [specific range] |
| Territorial range | [nationwide / specific province-city] |

### II. Retrieval Results

#### Result 1: [document / material name]

| Item | Content |
|------|------|
| Effect tag | [Quasi-normative] / [Official interpretation] / [Enforcement practice] / [Doctrinal reference] / [General reference] |
| Issuing organ | [specific organ] |
| Release date | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
| Document number | [if any] |
| Currency status | Currently effective / Amended / Repealed |
| Scope of application | [nationwide / specific territory / specific industry] |

**Core content excerpt:**
> [original quotation]

**Relevance analysis to user question:**
[how this material responds to the user question]

---

#### Result 2: [document / material name]
[same format]

---

### III. Comprehensive Analysis

[synthesis of all results; reveal consistency or contradictions]

### IV. Confidence Assessment

| Dimension | Rating | Explanation |
|------|------|------|
| Source reliability | ★★★★☆ | [explanation] |
| Currency | ★★★★★ | [explanation] |
| Consistency | ★★★☆☆ | [explanation] |
| Coverage | ★★★★☆ | [explanation] |
| **Overall confidence** | **★★★★☆** | [overall evaluation] |

### V. Risk Warnings

1. [warning 1]
2. [warning 2]
3. [matters needing further verification]

### VI. Suggested Next Steps

1. [suggestion 1]
2. [suggestion 2]

7.2 Brief Output Template (quick-reply scenarios)

**Retrieval result:** [brief overview]

**Key materials:**
1. [name] ([effect tag], [issuing organ], [date]): [core points]
2. [name] ([effect tag], [issuing organ], [date]): [core points]

**Confidence:** [High/Medium/Low] — [brief note]

**Note:** [key risk warning]

VIII. Confidence Labeling System

8.1 Single-Item Confidence

8.2 Overall Retrieval Confidence

IX. Common Errors and Prevention

9.1 Fatal Error Table

9.2 Common Traps

X. Special Scenario Handling

10.1 Information-Conflict Scenarios

Description: Contradictions among auxiliary legal information from different sources.

Handling rules:

1. Hierarchical-effect priority: Higher-effect information prevails over lower

   • Meeting minutes > local guiding opinions (same issue)
   • SPC documents > local-court documents
   • Newer documents > older (same organ)

2. Temporal priority: Newer information usually prevails over older

   • But note: new local documents cannot overturn older nationwide documents

3. Specialty priority: Special rules on a specific issue prevail over general rules

4. Presentation:

   ⚠️ Information-conflict warning:
   - [Source A] holds: [View A]
   - [Source B] holds: [View B]
   - Conflict analysis: [causes]
   - Suggested reliance: [suggestion and reasons]
   

10.2 Information-Gap Scenarios

Description: No directly related auxiliary legal information found for the user question.

Handling rules:

1. Expand retrieval scope:

   • From exact match to similar issues
   • From specific field to adjacent fields
   • From domestic to comparative foreign law

2. Downgrade substitutes:

   • No legislative background → scholarly analysis of legislative purpose
   • No regulatory cases → related administrative-litigation cases
   • No local guiding opinions → neighboring regions’ rules as reference

3. Expressly inform:

   ℹ️ Retrieval note:
   For [specific issue], no directly related [material type] was retrieved.
   Alternative: [results of substitute retrieval]
   Suggestion: [user next steps]
   

10.3 Sensitive-Information Scenarios

Description: Retrieved information involves internal documents, unpublished information, or sensitive policy.

Handling rules:

1. Cite only public information: Do not cite documents marked "internal," "confidential," or "secret"
2. Label information nature: If from informal channels (e.g., industry rumor), must clearly label
3. Advise formal confirmation: Advise confirmation via formal channels (e.g., information-disclosure request, regulatory consultation)

10.4 Legal Transition-Period Scenarios

Description: During old–new law transition, auxiliary materials may exist in both systems.

Handling rules:

1. Clarify time nodes: Label new-law effective date and transition arrangements
2. Distinguish application:
   • Conduct before new law effective → refer to old-system auxiliary materials
   • Conduct after new law effective → refer to new-system auxiliary materials
   • Transition-period conduct → refer to both
3. Warn of risk: Right after new-law effectiveness, supporting auxiliary materials (implementing rules, guiding opinions) may not yet exist

10.5 Cross-Field Retrieval Scenarios

Description: User question intersects multiple legal fields; need auxiliary materials from multiple fields.

Handling rules:

1. Identify intersection points: Clarify which legal fields are involved
2. Retrieve by field: Execute retrieval separately by field
3. Integrate analysis: Analyze whether auxiliary materials across fields conflict
4. Label fields: In output, clearly label each item’s legal field

XI. Quality Checklist

11.1 Pre-Retrieval Checks

• Accurately identified the user’s retrieval-need category?
• Clarified time and territorial ranges?
• Formulated reasonable retrieval strategy and priorities?
• Confirmed the issue truly needs "other retrieval," not statutory or case retrieval?

11.2 Mid-Retrieval Checks

• Used multiple sources for cross-verification?
• Prioritized official authoritative channels?
• Obtained full text rather than relying only on abstracts?
• Checked documents’ currency status?

11.3 Post-Retrieval Checks

• Each item fully cited (organ, name, date, document number)?
• Each item labeled with effect-level tag?
• Each item’s currency confirmed?
• Information conflicts revealed and analyzed if any?
• Information gaps explained with alternatives if any?
• Local documents labeled with applicable territory?
• Academic views distinguished prevailing vs. minority?
• Foreign-law materials explained with institutional-background differences?

11.4 Output Checks

• Output format matches template?
• Confidence assessment provided?
• Risk warnings provided?
• Next steps suggested?
• Citation style appropriate ("refer to" not "pursuant to")?
• All fatal errors (F-01 to F-06) avoided?

XII. Complete Examples

Example 1: Simple Scenario — Finding Legislative Background Materials

User question: What is the legislative purpose of Civil Code Art. 1176 on "assumption of risk" (自甘风险)? Why was this rule newly added?

Other Legal Retrieval Report

I. Retrieval Summary

II. Retrieval Results

Result 1: NPCSC Legal Affairs Commission explanation of the Civil Code (Draft)

Core content excerpt:

On the basis of summarizing practical experience, the Tort Liability Book draft improved rules such as assumption of risk. It provides that a person who voluntarily participates in a cultural or sports activity with certain risks and is harmed by another participant’s conduct may not request that other participant to bear tort liability, except where the other participant intentionally or with gross negligence caused the harm.

Relevance analysis: The explanation positions adding assumption of risk as a result of "summarizing practical experience"—related adjudicative rules already existed in practice; the Civil Code elevated them to statutory law.

Result 2: NPCSC Legal Affairs Commission Civil Law Office, Commentary on the Tort Liability Book of the PRC Civil Code

Core content excerpt:

This article provides for assumption of risk. As society develops, cultural and sports activities enrich people’s lives, and related disputes increase. In football, basketball, mountaineering, rock climbing, and other activities with certain risks, personal injury among participants sometimes occurs. Mechanically applying fault liability and requiring the injuring participant to pay damages would hinder normal cultural and sports activities and conflict with the public’s ordinary understanding. Therefore it is necessary to establish assumption of risk and reasonably allocate damage risk in such activities.

Relevance analysis: Written by the Legal Affairs Commission Civil Law Office (legislative participants), detailing legislative purpose: (1) respond to rising cultural/sports disputes; (2) avoid mechanical fault liability chilling normal activities; (3) align with ordinary public understanding and fairness.

Result 3: Prevailing academic views

Core content excerpt:

Prevailing scholarship holds that theoretical bases of assumption of risk include: (1) assumption of risk principle — those who voluntarily join dangerous activities should bear the inherent risks; (2) victim consent theory — participants’ knowledge and acceptance of inherent risks constitute implied consent; (3) policy consideration of promoting social activities — avoid excessive liability hindering beneficial cultural and sports activities.

Relevance analysis: Prevailing scholarship supplements the doctrinal foundation not fully developed in the legislative explanation, aiding deeper understanding of the rule’s justifications.

III. Comprehensive Analysis

The legislative purpose of Civil Code Art. 1176 "assumption of risk" may be understood on three levels:

1. Practical response: Rising cultural/sports disputes; adjudicative rules already formed in practice need statutory confirmation and unification.
2. Value balancing: Balance victim protection and normal cultural/sports activities; avoid a "chilling effect" from mechanical fault liability.
3. Doctrinal foundation: Supported by assumption-of-risk and victim-consent theory, reflecting the principle of self-responsibility.

IV. Confidence Assessment

V. Risk Warnings

1. Although the Legal Affairs Commission Civil Law Office commentary is highly authoritative, strictly speaking it is doctrinal interpretation, not legislative interpretation, and has no legal binding force.
2. The concrete scope of assumption of risk (e.g., whether limited to "cultural and sports activities") remains disputed in scholarship and practice; legislative background materials do not fully eliminate that dispute.

VI. Suggested Next Steps

1. For judicial application after effectiveness, conduct case retrieval for judgments applying Art. 1176.
2. For comparative background, research common-law "assumption of risk" and civil-law "victim consent" theories.

Example 2: Complex Scenario — Cross-Category Retrieval (Regulatory Cases + Local Guiding Opinions + Policy Documents)

User question: Our company is an internet platform planning to add personal-information cross-border transfer clauses to the user agreement. Please help us understand: (1) How severe are regulatory penalties for illegal cross-border personal-information transfers? (2) Do local cyberspace authorities have special requirements? (3) What is the future regulatory trend?

Other Legal Retrieval Report

I. Retrieval Summary

II. Retrieval Results

【Part 1: Regulatory Cases — Penalty Severity】

Result 1: Cyberspace Administration of China administrative penalty decision against DiDi Global

Core content excerpt:

Pursuant to the Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, Personal Information Protection Law, and other laws and regulations, CAC imposed a fine of RMB 8.026 billion on DiDi Global. Investigation found illegal processing of personal information, data-processing activities endangering national security, and related violations, including illegal provision of data overseas.

Relevance analysis: The most emblematic post-PIPL penalty, with a historically high fine. Although the case’s violations far exceed pure

…(truncated)