Overview Table
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capability ID | 13 |
| Capability Name | Extraction of Core Legal Elements |
| Capability Type | Fact Structuring |
| Core Function | Extract legally relevant facts from unstructured case narratives, classify them by type, and map them to legal constituent elements |
| Input | Everyday-language case descriptions, party statements, chat records, media reports, preliminarily organized case materials |
| Output | Structured list of legal elements, legal fact analysis table, legal practice timeline |
| Related Capabilities | Understanding of legal concepts (identifying legal elements), application of legal rules (embedding facts into rules), analysis of the basis of claims (mapping to elements of claims) |
| Key Principles | Objectification, minimal unitization, typification, element correspondence |
Legal Statement
Important Notice:
- This skill deals with "fact extraction and structuring" and does not involve reaching legal conclusions. The extracted legal facts still require subsequent analysis in combination with specific legal norms, bases of claims, and rules of evidence.
- Fact extraction depends on the completeness and authenticity of the original narrative. When the narrative has severe information gaps, contradictory facts, or insufficient evidence, the extraction results can only form a preliminary framework.
- The identification of "objective facts" is based on textual analysis and cannot replace evidence review and fact-finding. When key factual disputes are involved, the principle of adjudication based on evidence should be followed.
- When converting everyday language into legal language, the conversion conclusions are only preliminary judgments, and the specific wording should be based on actual evidence and legal analysis.
I. Core Concepts
1.1 Three-Layer Fact Structure
Not all information in a case narrative has legal significance. It is necessary to penetrate three layers of structure:
原始叙述（生活叙事）
↓ 提取与筛选
法律相关事实（具有规范意义的事实单元）
↓ 类型化与对应
要件事实（可直接对应法律构成要件的事实）
| Layer | Characteristics | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Original Narrative | Colloquial, emotional, strongly narrative, loosely structured | "He kept delaying and refusing to repay; I am really too angry; this kind of person is simply dishonest" |
| Legally Relevant Facts | Directly related to legal judgment, with emotion and evaluation removed | Loan amount of 50,000 yuan, agreed repayment period of 1 month, overdue by 3 months without repayment, borrower deleted the lender's WeChat |
| Element Facts | Can directly correspond to the constituent elements of a specific claim or defense | Loan agreement formed (element of contract formation) → performance period expired (element of performance) → loan not returned (element of breach) |
1.2 Nine Categories of Fact Units
All legally relevant facts can be classified into the following nine categories:
| Fact Type | Core Question | Typical content | Legal significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject facts | Who? | Identity and mutual relationships of the actor, victim, contract party, agent, platform, third party, etc. | Determine the attribution of rights and obligations and assess whether a party has standing |
| Act facts | What was done? | Signing, payment, delivery, notice, refusal, disclosure, deletion, damage, forwarding, etc. | Determine the nature of the act and whether it constitutes a legal act or factual act |
| Time facts | When? | Time of contract formation, performance period, time of damage occurrence, time of notice, time of knowing or when one should have known | Determine the starting point of the limitation period, performance period, and exclusion period |
| Place facts | Where? | Place of contract formation, place of performance, place of damage occurrence, jurisdictional connecting point | Determine the place of performance, court with jurisdiction, and applicable law |
| Object facts | What does it point to? | Objects such as funds, goods, data, works, equipment, personality interests, private information, etc. | Determine the object of rights and assess the object of damage |
| Result facts | What consequences arise? | Non-performance, defective delivery, occurrence of damage, privacy leakage, reputational damage, reduction of property | Determine the existence of damage and the endpoint of causation |
| Causation facts | Is there a connection between the act and the result? | Whether a certain act leads to a certain result and what intervening factors exist | Determine the establishment of liability and interruption of causation |
| Subjective facts | What is the subjective state? | Intent, negligence, knowing, should have known, failure to exercise reasonable duty of care, good faith/bad faith | Determine the fault element and basis of attribution |
| Procedural facts | What procedural action was taken? | Demand, negotiation, complaint, report to police, filing suit, performance of notification obligation, raising objection | Determine whether procedural conditions are satisfied and whether the limitation period is interrupted |
1.3 Fourfold classification of factual attributes
Information in the same narrative needs to be distinguished into four attributes:
| Attribute | Feature | Identifying marker | Handling method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective fact | Can be described and proved through external evidence | State specific acts, time, place, and object | Extract directly and mark possible sources of evidence |
| Subjective judgment | A party's judgment based on their own feelings | "I feel" "I think" "obviously" "certainly" | Strip away emotion and inquire into the underlying objective facts |
| Legal evaluation | Already carries normative classification or liability judgment | "Constitutes fraud" "constitutes breach of contract" "involves malice" "clearly illegal" | Restore to the objective factual basis supporting that evaluation |
| Background information | No direct connection to legal judgment | Party's personality, irrelevant causes and consequences, rhetorical description | Remove; retain only the information necessary for auxiliary understanding |
Key principles: Evaluative expressions such as "deception," "malice," and "obviously illegal" cannot be used directly as analytical premises; they must be further reduced to objective facts that can be identified under the norms.
II. Complete Workflow
Stage One: Deconstruction and Extraction
Step 1: Segment into the Smallest Fact Units
Break down the everyday language, long sentences, compound sentences, emotional expressions, and conclusory descriptions in the case materials into several smallest fact units that can be independently identified and independently judged.
Segmentation method:
- Split compound narratives by sentence
- Each fact unit should contain: who (subject) + did what (act) + when (time) + directed at what (object) + produced what (result)
- For fact units lacking elements, mark them as "to be supplemented"
Example:
| Original narrative | Smallest fact units after segmentation |
|---|---|
| "Last year I lent a friend fifty thousand yuan, and he said at the time that he would definitely repay me after one month. Later, after three months, he still had not repaid. Every time I asked him, he said to wait a little longer, and in the end he deleted me on WeChat." | ① The lender (I) and the borrower (friend) reached a loan agreement ② Loan amount: 50,000 yuan ③ Agreed repayment period: 1 month ④ Actual overdue period: 3 months without repayment ⑤ The lender demanded repayment multiple times ⑥ The borrower refused to repay (made excuses) ⑦ The borrower deleted the lender on WeChat (cut off contact) |
Step 2: Typological Classification of Facts
Classify the smallest fact units obtained through segmentation according to nine categories of facts:
Output format:
### 结构化法律要素清单
#### 主体事实
- [...]
#### 行为事实
- [...]
#### 时间事实
- [...]
#### 地点事实
- [...]
#### 对象事实
- [...]
#### 结果事实
- [...]
#### 因果关系事实
- [...]
#### 主观事实
- [...]
#### 程序事实
- [...]
Step 3: Attribute Analysis and Purification
For each fact unit, determine its attribute:
- Is it an objective fact? Yes → retain and mark possible sources of evidence; No → proceed to the next step
- Is it a subjective judgment? Yes → strip away emotional words and inquire into the objective facts behind them; No → proceed to the next step
- Is it a legal evaluation? Yes → reduce it to the objective factual basis supporting that evaluation; No → proceed to the next step
- Is it background information? Yes → remove it (unless necessary for understanding the case)
Analysis examples:
| Original expression | Attribute judgment | Purification result |
|---|---|---|
| "He kept delaying and would not repay" | Subjective judgment + legal evaluation | Act fact: failure to perform after the performance period expired; procedural fact: the creditor demanded repayment multiple times |
| "The seller clearly said it was new" | Subjective judgment ("clearly") | Act fact: the seller made the representation that "the goods are brand new"; subjective fact: the seller knew or should have known that the goods were not brand new |
| "The platform leaked my information" | Legal evaluation ("leaked") | Act fact: the platform provided the user's personal information to a third party; object fact: the user's personal information; result fact: the information was obtained by a third party |
| "This kind of person is simply untrustworthy" | Subjective judgment + emotion | Background information → remove |
Stage Two: Correspondence and Transformation
Step 4: Transformation from everyday language → legal language
Transcribe the purified objective facts into normative statements with legal analytical significance:
| Everyday language | Legal language |
|---|---|
| "He kept delaying and wouldn't repay" | "After the debt performance period expired, the debtor failed to perform the repayment obligation" |
| "The seller clearly said it was new" | "The seller made a specific representation regarding the quality of the subject matter (the subject matter was brand new)" |
| "The platform leaked my information" | "The information processor engaged in the act of providing personal information to a third party, and such provision was without the consent of the information subject" |
| "Every time I asked him, he said to wait a bit longer" | "The creditor demanded performance multiple times, and the debtor repeatedly promised to perform but did not actually perform" |
| "He deleted me on WeChat" | "The debtor, by deleting the contact method, refused to communicate with the creditor" |
Transformation principles:
- Use neutral, objective normative wording
- Retain specific elements (amount, time, quantity, etc.) without vagueness
- Where subjective states are involved, use legal concepts such as "knew," "should have known," and "negligence," rather than evaluative terms such as "intentional" and "malicious" (unless there is sufficient factual support)
Step 5: Map to legal constituent elements
Centering on the specific legal relationship and legal issue, map the extracted and transformed facts to a specific basis of claim, constituent elements of liability, or grounds of defense.
Mapping method:
- Identify the possible legal relationships involved in the case (contract, tort, unjust enrichment, negotiorum gestio, etc.)
- List the constituent elements of that legal relationship
- Map the facts one by one to each element
- Mark: elements satisfied / elements partially satisfied / elements lacking facts
Output format (element mapping table):
### 要件映射分析
**法律关系：** [如：借款合同关系]
**请求权基础：** [如：《民法典》第675条（返还借款请求权）]
| 构成要件 | 对应事实 | 满足状态 | 说明 |
|----------|----------|----------|------|
| 借贷合意 | 双方就5万元借款达成一致 | ✅ 满足 | 有聊天记录/借条为证 |
| 款项交付 | 出借人向借款人转账5万元 | ✅ 满足 | 有转账记录 |
| 履行期限届满 | 约定1个月，已逾期3个月 | ✅ 满足 | 约定明确 |
| 未返还借款 | 借款人未返还任何款项 | ✅ 满足 | 借款人承认/无还款记录 |
Stage Three: Integrated output
Step 6: Output structured results
According to user needs, choose one or more of the following output forms:
Form A: Structured list of legal elements(Suitable for preliminary document organization)
- List all legally relevant facts by the nine categories of facts
- Mark the evidence source of each fact (if stated)
- Mark facts to be supplemented and disputed facts
Form B: Legal fact analysis table(Suitable as a precursor to professional legal analysis)
- Columns: original narrative → objectified facts → legal label → fact type → corresponding constituent elements → evidence source → dispute status
Form C: Legal practice timeline(Suitable for organizing complex cases)
- Arrange important acts, event developments, and legal nodes in chronological order
- Mark: time, actor, content of act, object involved, result of act, key evidence, legal significance
III. Output format templates
Template A: Structured list of legal elements
## 法律核心要素提取报告
### 一、原始叙述摘要
[用1-2句话概括原始叙述的核心内容]
### 二、结构化事实提取
#### 主体事实
- [事实1]
- [事实2]
#### 行为事实
- [事实1]
- [事实2]
#### 时间事实
- [事实1]
- [事实2]
#### 地点事实
- [如有]
#### 对象事实
- [事实1]
#### 结果事实
- [事实1]
#### 因果关系事实
- [事实1]
#### 主观事实
- [事实1]
#### 程序事实
- [事实1]
### 三、待补充事实
[列出原始叙述中缺失但对法律分析重要的事实]
### 四、争议事实
[列出叙述中存在矛盾或需要证据证实的事实]
### 五、已剔除信息
[列出被认定为背景信息、主观判断或法律评价而被剔除的内容]
Template B: Legal fact analysis table
| 原始叙述原文 | 客观化事实表述 | 法律标签 | 事实类型 | 对应构成要件 | 证据来源 | 争议状态 |
|-------------|---------------|----------|----------|-------------|----------|----------|
| [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
Template C: Legal practice timeline
| 时间 | 行为主体 | 行为内容 | 涉及对象 | 行为结果 | 关键证据 | 法律意义 |
|------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
IV. Examples
Example 1: Structured element extraction
Input:
"Last year I lent a friend fifty thousand yuan, and at the time he said he would definitely repay me in a month. Later, three months passed and he still hadn't repaid. Every time I asked him, he said to wait a bit longer, and in the end he deleted me on WeChat."
Output:
## 法律核心要素提取报告
### 一、原始叙述摘要
出借人向借款人出借5万元，约定1个月归还，逾期3个月未还，借款人删除出借人微信。
### 二、结构化事实提取
#### 主体事实
- 出借人（叙述者）与借款人（朋友）之间成立借款关系
- 双方为自然人之间的借贷关系
#### 行为事实
- 双方就5万元借款达成合意
- 出借人向借款人交付借款（金额5万元）
- 借款人承诺1个月后归还
- 借款人在履行期限届满后未归还借款
- 出借人多次向借款人催告还款
- 借款人以"再等等"为由拖延
- 借款人删除出借人微信，断绝联系
#### 时间事实
- 借款时间："去年"（需进一步确认具体日期）
- 约定还款期限：1个月
- 逾期时间：3个月
- 诉讼时效起算点：约定还款期限届满之日（需确认具体日期）
#### 地点事实
- [未提及，需补充：借款交付地点、被告住所地等，用于确定管辖]
#### 对象事实
- 借款标的：人民币5万元
#### 结果事实
- 借款人未按约定期限返还借款
- 借款人与出借人失去联系
#### 因果关系事实
- 借款人未履行还款义务 → 出借人债权未实现
#### 主观事实
- 借款人明知还款义务（曾承诺还款）
- 借款人有履行能力但拒不履行（多次推诿后断绝联系）
#### 程序事实
- 出借人多次催告（可构成时效中断）
- 未提起诉讼或仲裁
### 三、待补充事实
1. 借款的具体日期（影响诉讼时效计算）
2. 借款交付方式（现金/转账，影响证据证明力）
3. 是否有借条、欠条或借款合同
4. 借款人身份信息（起诉需要明确的被告）
5. 借款人是否有财产线索（影响执行）
### 四、争议事实
- 借款人删除微信的行为是否构成"逃废债"的恶意证据（需结合其他证据判断）
### 五、已剔除信息
- "我真的太生气了" → 主观情绪，已剔除
- "这种人简直不讲信用" → 主观评价，已剔除
Example 2: Everyday Language → Legal Language Transformation
Input:
"I bought a computer on a second-hand platform. The seller said it was brand new and unopened, but after receiving it, I found it was a repaired machine. I asked him for a return, but he did not agree, and he also deleted part of the previous chat content."
Output:
## 生活语言 → 法律语言转化
| 原始表述 | 属性判断 | 法律语言转化 |
|----------|----------|-------------|
| "我在二手平台买了一台电脑" | 客观事实 | 买受人与出卖人（二手平台卖家）之间成立买卖合同关系，标的物为电脑一台 |
| "卖家说是全新未拆封" | 客观事实（出卖人表示） | 出卖人就标的物品质向买受人作出特定表示：标的物为全新且未拆封 |
| "结果收到后发现是修过的机器" | 客观事实 | 买受人受领的标的物为经维修的机器，与出卖人表示的"全新未拆封"不符 |
| "我找他退货" | 客观事实（行为） | 买受人向出卖人主张解除合同并要求退货 |
| "他不同意" | 客观事实 | 出卖人拒绝买受人退货请求 |
| "删掉了之前聊天里的部分内容" | 客观事实 | 出卖人删除了双方之间的部分聊天记录（可能涉及证据灭失） |
### 可能的法律关系与构成要件初步分析
**路径一：买卖合同瑕疵担保责任**
- 要件1：买卖合同成立 → ✅ 双方就电脑买卖达成合意
- 要件2：标的物存在瑕疵 → ✅ 标的物为维修机而非全新机，存在品质瑕疵
- 要件3：瑕疵于合同订立时存在 → ❓ 需证明维修发生于交付前
- 要件4：买受人在检验期内通知 → ❓ 需证明买受人及时提出异议
- 法律效果：买受人可主张修理、更换、退货、减价或赔偿损失（《民法典》第582条）
**路径二：欺诈（撤销合同）**
- 要件1：出卖人作出虚假陈述 → ✅ "全新未拆封"为虚假表示
- 要件2：出卖人具有欺诈故意 → ❓ 需证明出卖人明知或应知为维修机
- 要件3：买受人因欺诈陷入错误认识 → ✅ 买受人基于"全新"表示作出购买决定
- 要件4：买受人因错误认识作出意思表示 → ✅ 买受人同意购买
- 法律效果：买受人可请求撤销合同并要求返还价款（《民法典》第148条）
- 除斥期间：自知道或应当知道撤销事由之日起1年内
**路径三：消费欺诈（如适用《消费者权益保护法》）**
- 需确认出卖人是否为经营者、买受人是否为为生活消费需要购买
- 如构成，可主张"退一赔三"（《消费者权益保护法》第55条）
Example 3: Legal Fact Analysis Table
Input:
"Our company commissioned Company B to develop an App. The contract stipulated delivery within 3 months, with a total price of 300,000 yuan. After signing, we paid a 100,000 yuan advance payment. When the 3 months arrived, Company B said it had not finished and needed another 2-month extension. We did not agree and demanded a refund. Company B said the advance payment had already been spent and could not be refunded. Later we discovered that Company B had subcontracted the project to Company C, even though the contract clearly stated that subcontracting was not allowed."
Output:
## 法律事实分析表格
| 原始叙述原文 | 客观化事实表述 | 法律标签 | 事实类型 | 对应构成要件 | 证据来源 | 争议状态 |
|-------------|---------------|----------|----------|-------------|----------|----------|
| "我们公司委托乙公司开发一款App" | 甲公司（委托人）与乙公司（开发方）签订技术开发合同，标的为App软件开发 | 技术开发合同成立 | 主体/行为/对象 | 合同成立要件 | 书面合同 | 无争议 |
| "合同约定3个月交付，总价30万元" | 约定履行期限：3个月；合同价款：30万元 | 履行期限/价款条款 | 时间/对象 | 合同内容确定 | 书面合同 | 无争议 |
| "付了10万预付款" | 委托人向开发方支付预付款10万元 | 预付款支付 | 行为/对象 | 履行行为 | 转账记录 | 无争议 |
| "3个月到了乙公司说还没做完，要再延期2个月" | 开发方在履行期限届满时未交付成果，要求延期2个月 | 迟延履行 | 行为/时间/结果 | 违约要件（不履行） | 沟通记录 | 无争议 |
| "我们不同意，要求退款" | 委托人拒绝延期要求，主张解除合同并要求返还预付款 | 解除合同意思表示 | 行为/程序 | 解除权行使 | 沟通记录 | 无争议 |
| "乙公司说预付款已经花了，不能退" | 开发方主张预付款已用于项目支出，拒绝返还 | 抗辩（已履行部分义务/费用已发生） | 行为/结果 | 抗辩事由 | 开发方陈述 | 有争议（需核实） |
| "乙公司把项目转包给了丙公司" | 开发方未经委托人同意，将开发项目交由丙公司实际履行 | 擅自转包 | 行为/主体 | 违约要件（违反合同约定的不得转包条款） | 事实发现/丙公司参与证据 | 需证实 |
| "合同里明明写着不得转包" | 合同明确约定开发方不得将项目转包给第三方 | 禁止转包条款 | 行为 | 合同约定义务 | 书面合同 | 无争议 |
V. Common Errors and Prevention
| Error Type | Error Description | Consequence | Preventive Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistaking Evaluation for Fact | Directly using legal evaluations such as "constitutes fraud" or "constitutes breach of contract" as the premise of analysis | Fact review is skipped, and the conclusion lacks a factual basis | When encountering evaluative expressions, ask "what conduct led you to this conclusion?" |
| Mistaking Emotion for Fact | "I am too angry" or "he is too bad" is retained as important information | The summary is filled with subjective emotion, drowning out objective facts | Identify emotional words ("too", "simply", "obviously", "definitely"), strip them away, and ask about the facts |
| Omitting Key Times | Failure to extract or incorrect extraction of temporal elements | Errors in calculating the statute of limitations, exclusion period, performance period, etc. | Mark a time for each act; mark uncertain ones as "to be confirmed" |
| Confusing the Conduct of Different Subjects | Mixing A's conduct with B's conduct | Unclear attribution of liability, incorrect correspondence of elements | Clearly mark the acting subject for each factual unit |
| Over-Abstraction | Over-generalizing specific facts into "there is a dispute" or "a controversy arose" | The specificity of the facts is lost, making element testing impossible | Retain specific elements (amount, time, quantity, specific conduct) |
| Omitting Procedural Facts | Ignoring procedural acts such as demand, notice, or objection | The risk that procedural elements are not satisfied is omitted | Pay special attention to "was there a demand", "was there a notice", and "was an objection raised" |
| Ignoring Evidence Leads | Failure to mark possible sources of evidence when extracting facts | In subsequent legal analysis, the probative force of facts cannot be assessed | For each fact, mark the possible form of evidence as far as possible |
VI. Handling Special Scenarios
6.1 Cases with Multiple Parties
- Extract and classify each subject's conduct separately
- Clearly mark the legal relationships among the subjects (counterparty to the contract, tortfeasor and victim, joint tortfeasors, etc.)
- For different versions by different subjects concerning the same fact, mark the points of contradiction
6.2 Cases with Complex Timelines
- Give priority to the timeline output format
- Annotate the legal significance of each point in time (e.g., how many days have passed after a demand, when a period of exclusion expires)
- For raw materials with disordered time narratives, sort by time first and then extract
6.3 Chat records/fragmented information
- Extract item by item according to dialogue turns, preserving the dialogue context
- Distinguish "who said what" from "what actually happened"
- Pay attention to content in chat records such as promises, admissions, and apologies that may constitute an admission
6.4 Media reports/third-party narratives
- Identify the source of information (the party's own account, eyewitnesses, journalists' inferences)
- Mark second-hand information as "pending verification"
- Distinguish "confirmed facts" from "speculative statements" in reports
6.5 Case narratives with insufficient evidence
- Truthfully mark the elements that "lack factual support"
- List the key facts that need to be supplemented and possible forms of evidence
- Do not fabricate facts because of missing information
6.6 Cases involving specialized fields
- Keep the original text of specialized terminology (medicine, engineering, finance, etc.) while trying to understand its legal significance
- When necessary, mark matters as "requiring expert appraisal"
- Do not directly convert professional judgments into legal facts
VII. Quality Inspection Checklist
□ 1. 原始叙述是否已切分为最小事实单元？
□ 2. 每个事实单元是否已明确行为主体？
□ 3. 全部事实是否已按九类事实类型归类？
□ 4. 客观事实、主观判断、法律评价、背景信息是否已区分？
□ 5. 法律评价性表述是否已还原为客观事实基础？
□ 6. 主观情绪词是否已剥离？
□ 7. 生活语言是否已转化为法律语言？
□ 8. 提取的事实是否已对应到具体法律构成要件？
□ 9. 待补充事实是否已列明？
□ 10. 争议事实是否已标注？
□ 11. 各事实是否已标注可能的证据来源？
□ 12. 关键时间节点是否已提取（合同成立、履行期限、损害发生、知悉时间等）？
□ 13. 程序事实是否已提取（催告、通知、异议、起诉等）？
□ 14. 输出是否使用了结构化的模板格式？
VIII. Related Skills
| Related Skill | Relationship | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Understanding legal concepts | Upstream | Only by understanding the constitutive elements of legal concepts can facts be accurately matched |
| Legal provision retrieval | Upstream/parallel | Retrieve legal norms relevant to the case and determine the framework of constitutive elements |
| Application of legal rules | Downstream | After fact extraction is completed, embed the facts into the rules for legal application |
| Analysis of the basis of the claim | Downstream | Match the extracted facts to the various elements of a specific claim |
| Legal reasoning | Downstream | Conduct legal argumentation on the basis of facts and rules |
| Evidence analysis | Parallel/downstream | Review and evaluate the evidentiary basis of the extracted facts |
IX. Limitations and Risk Warnings
- Functional positioning: This skill addresses "the organization problem before facts enter legal analysis" and cannot replace the complete legal argumentation process. The extracted facts still need to be subsequently analyzed in combination with specific legal norms, the basis of the claim, evidentiary rules, and methods of legal interpretation.
- Information dependence: The quality of fact extraction depends entirely on the completeness and authenticity of the original narrative. When the narrative has severe missing information, contradictory facts, disordered narrative sequence, or insufficient evidentiary materials, the extraction result can only form a preliminary framework.
- Evidentiary boundary: This skill identifies "possible objective facts" based on textual analysis and cannot replace evidence review. When there is a dispute over key facts, the principle of adjudication based on evidence should be followed, and facts cannot be found based solely on the content of the narrative.
- Transformation risk: When converting everyday language into legal language, the conversion conclusions are only preliminary judgments and may deviate due to incomplete information. Specific statements should be based on actual evidence and legal analysis.
- Subjectivity residue: Although it is required to distinguish objective facts from subjective judgments, the judgment of "what constitutes a key fact" itself still involves legal professional experience, and different analysts may have different emphases.
- Timeliness: When time calculations are involved (limitation of actions, exclusion periods), the extracted date information may be incomplete or uncertain, and should be marked as "to be verified" with a recommendation for the user to confirm.