legal-norm-validity-check

Validity Check of Legal Norms

Overview Table

Item	Content
Capability Name	Validity Check of Legal Norms
Core Objective	Confirm that the retrieved legal provisions are currently valid, at the correct hierarchical level, and free of conflicts
Input	One or more retrieved legal norm provisions (including source information)
Output	A validity status report for each legal norm (valid/invalid/partially amended/conflicting), with reasons and confidence level
Prerequisite Skills	Legal retrieval (legal provision retrieval completed)
Subsequent Skills	Legal application, legal argumentation, legal opinion drafting
Risk Level	Extremely high — Citing invalid or conflicting legal provisions will directly lead to erroneous legal conclusions
Applicable Jurisdiction	The legal system of the People's Republic of China (including explanatory notes on the interface rules of the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions)

Legal Statement

Important Notice: This skill document merely provides methodological guidance for AI agents in checking the validity of legal norms and does not constitute formal legal advice. The validity status of legal norms may change at any time due to legislative activities. When executing this skill, the agent should:

Clearly inform the user of the time point of the validity check;

Truthfully mark uncertainty for validity statuses that cannot be confirmed;

Advise users to consult a licensed lawyer or check official legal databases (such as the "National Database of Laws and Regulations") for key legal issues;

Must not use legal provisions of doubtful validity as the sole basis for definitive conclusions.

I. Core Concepts

1.1 Three Dimensions of the Validity of Legal Norms

The validity check of legal norms must be carried out comprehensively from the following three dimensions, none of which can be omitted:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│              法律规范效力检查三维度                │
│                                                   │
│   ┌──────────┐  ┌──────────┐  ┌──────────┐      │
│   │ 时间效力 │  │ 层级效力 │  │ 冲突检查 │      │
│   │(temporal)│  │(hierarchy│  │(conflict)│      │
│   │          │  │         )│  │          │      │
│   └────┬─────┘  └────┬─────┘  └────┬─────┘      │
│        │             │             │              │
│   是否现行有效？ 制定主体是否   与上位法/同位法   │
│   有无修订废止？ 有权？层级     是否矛盾？如何    │
│   过渡条款？     是否正确？     选择适用？        │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

1.2 Classification of Validity Statuses of Legal Norms

Validity Status	Definition	Marker Symbol
Currently Valid	The legal norm has taken effect and has not been amended, repealed, or revoked	✅ VALID
Amended/Revised	The original text has been replaced by a new text; the latest version must be cited	🔄 AMENDED
Partially Invalid	The legal norm as a whole remains valid, but specific provisions have been amended or repealed	⚠️ PARTIAL
Repealed	The legal norm has been explicitly repealed and no longer has legal effect	❌ REPEALED
Invalid	The legal norm has lapsed naturally due to the expiration of its applicable period or the disappearance of the object it regulates	❌ EXPIRED
Not Yet Effective	The legal norm has been promulgated but the effective date has not yet arrived	⏳ PENDING
Validity in Doubt	The validity status cannot be determined and requires further verification	❓ UNCERTAIN

1.3 Normative Hierarchy of the Chinese Legal System

第一层：宪法
  │
第二层：法律（全国人大及其常委会制定）
  │  ├── 基本法律（全国人大制定）
  │  └── 其他法律（全国人大常委会制定）
  │
第三层：行政法规（国务院制定）
  │
第四层：地方性法规 ←→ 部门规章（同层级，不同制定主体）
  │  ├── 省级地方性法规
  │  ├── 设区的市地方性法规
  │  └── 自治条例、单行条例
  │
第五层：地方政府规章
  │
其他：司法解释（最高人民法院/最高人民检察院）
      规范性文件（各级政府及部门）
      指导性案例（最高人民法院发布）

1.4 Key Legal Bases

Core legal norms on which the agent itself must rely when executing this skill:

Legal Norms	Core Provisions	Regulated Content
Legislation Law of the People's Republic of China (2023 Amendment)	Full text, especially Articles 87-101	Authority to enact legal norms, hierarchy, and conflict resolution
Constitution of the People's Republic of China	Article 5, Articles 62-67	Principle of unity of the legal system, division of legislative authority
Regulations on the Filing and Review of Regulations and Rules	Full text	Filing and review procedures
Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Citation of Laws, Regulations and Other Normative Legal Documents in Judgment Documents	Full text	Scope of normative documents that may be cited

II. Complete Workflow

2.0 Data Sources and Tool Invocation Conventions (Mandatory)

Core principle: The current validity status of a legal provision must come from genuine tracing; it is strictly prohibited to judge from memory whether a legal provision has been amended or repealed.

The risk level of this skill isextremely high—citing invalid or conflicting legal provisions will directly lead to erroneous legal conclusions. Before executing the following verification process, first determine whether the operating environment containslegal provision tracing/verification tools(for example, a connected legal database MCP service, legal provision identification and tracing tools, retrieval APIs, or a local legal database):

If present: the identifier of the legal provision to be verified (law name + article number, or the cited text) must be submitted to that tool, and its returned genuine results (original text of the provision, document number,validity level、timeliness: currently effective/amended/repealed, amendment history) shall serve as the basis for determining validity. If the tool has the capability to "verify/correct model-generated legal provisions," it should also be used to compare the legal provisions cited this time, identifying misplaced article numbers, outdated versions, and fabricated provisions.
If not present: complete the methodological verification steps as usual, but any validity status that cannot be confirmed online must be marked as uncertain in accordance with the "VI. Confidence Annotation System," and it must be clearly stated that "no legal database is connected, and the validity status is subject to manual verification."Never disguise legal provisions of doubtful validity as definite conclusions, and never fabricate amendment/repeal information.
Tool-agnostic: This convention relies only on the two abstract capabilities of "tracing the current status of a legal provision" and "verifying whether a citation is genuine/currently effective," and is not bound to any specific vendor. For specific integration methods (such as PKULAW MCP's legal provision tracing and corrected legal provision generation hallucination service), see the README.md。

The above tool verification results should be incorporated into "4.2 Information Source Reliability Grading" for joint weighing; for key legal provisions, it is still recommended to cross-check with the officialNational Database of Laws and Regulations.

2.1 Overall Flowchart

输入：已检索到的法律规范条文
         │
         ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤1：规范识别与定位 │ ──→ 确认规范的完整名称、制定机关、
└────────┬────────────┘      公布日期、施行日期、文号
         │
         ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤2：时间效力检查   │ ──→ 是否现行有效？有无修正/废止？
└────────┬────────────┘
         │
         ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤3：制定主体与     │ ──→ 制定机关是否有权？层级是否正确？
│        层级效力检查   │
└────────┬────────────┘
         │
         ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤4：规范冲突检查   │ ──→ 与上位法/同位法是否矛盾？
└────────┬────────────┘
         │
         ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤5：特殊效力规则   │ ──→ 溯及力、过渡条款、特别规定等
│        检查           │
└────────┬────────────┘
         │
         ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤6：综合效力判定   │ ──→ 汇总三维度结论，给出最终判定
│        与输出         │
└─────────────────────┘
         │
         ▼
输出：效力状态报告（含置信度）

2.2 Detailed Operations for Each Step

Step 1: Norm Identification and Location

Purpose: To precisely lock down the identity information of the legal norm to be examined, avoiding misattribution.

Operation Checklist:

Confirm the legal norm'scomplete official name(note the distinction between norms with the same name but at different levels)
Confirmenacting authority(National People's Congress/State Council/local people's congresses/ministries and commissions, etc.)
ConfirmDocument number(e.g., "Order of the President of the People's Republic of China No. XX")
ConfirmPromulgation dateandEffective date
ConfirmSpecific article numbers cited(Article X, Paragraph X, Item X)
Confirm whether there existsSame name, different versions(e.g., multiple amendments)

Key points to note:

⚠️ 常见混淆情形：
1. 《民法通则》vs《民法典》— 前者已废止
2. 《公司法》2018年修正 vs 2023年修订 — 版本差异巨大
3. 《行政处罚法》1996年版 vs 2021年修订版
4. 部门规章与地方性法规同名但内容不同
5. "修正"与"修订"的区别：
   - 修正(amendment)：对个别条款的修改，其余条款不变
   - 修订(revision)：对法律的全面修改，产生新的文本

Step 2: Temporal validity check

Purpose: Confirm whether the legal norm is valid at the current point in time (or the point in time relevant to the case).

Operating procedure:

2.1 检查施行日期
    │
    ├── 尚未到达施行日期 → 标记 ⏳ PENDING
    │
    └── 已到达施行日期 → 继续检查
         │
         2.2 检查是否有明确的有效期限
         │
         ├── 有期限且已届满 → 标记 ❌ EXPIRED
         │
         └── 无期限或未届满 → 继续检查
              │
              2.3 检查是否被修正/修订
              │
              ├── 已被修正 → 确认修正范围
              │   ├── 涉及引用条款 → 标记 🔄 AMENDED，定位新条款
              │   └── 不涉及引用条款 → 标记 ✅ VALID（注明已有修正版本）
              │
              ├── 已被修订（全面修改）→ 标记 🔄 AMENDED，必须使用新版本
              │
              └── 未被修正/修订 → 继续检查
                   │
                   2.4 检查是否被废止
                   │
                   ├── 被明示废止（新法明确列出废止清单）→ 标记 ❌ REPEALED
                   │
                   ├── 被默示废止（新法与旧法内容矛盾且新法未明确废止旧法）
                   │   → 标记 ⚠️ PARTIAL 或 ❓ UNCERTAIN，需进一步分析
                   │
                   └── 未被废止 → 标记 ✅ VALID

Temporal validity check key points table:

Check item	Specific operation	Information source
Effective date	Check the effective clause at the end of the legal text	Original legal text
Amendment/revision record	Check the history of amendments to that law	National Database of Laws and Regulations
Repeal information	Check whether a new law explicitly repeals that law	Repeal decision, supplementary provisions of the new law
Validity period	Some regulations have an explicit validity period (e.g., temporary regulations)	Original legal text
Cleanup decision	The State Council/local governments periodically clean up laws and regulations	Cleanup decision document

Step 3: Check of enacting body and hierarchical validity

Purpose: Confirm that the enacting body of the legal norm has the corresponding legislative authority and that its hierarchical positioning is correct.

Operating procedure:

3.1 识别制定机关
    │
    3.2 确认制定机关的立法权限
    │
    ├── 全国人大 → 可制定基本法律
    ├── 全国人大常委会 → 可制定其他法律
    ├── 国务院 → 可制定行政法规（需有法律授权或宪法职权范围内）
    ├── 国务院部委 → 可制定部门规章（限于执行法律/行政法规事项）
    ├── 省级人大及其常委会 → 可制定地方性法规
    ├── 设区的市人大及其常委会 → 可就城乡建设与管理、生态环境保护、
    │                              历史文化保护等事项制定地方性法规
    ├── 省级政府 → 可制定地方政府规章
    ├── 设区的市政府 → 可制定地方政府规章（限于上述事项范围）
    ├── 最高人民法院/最高人民检察院 → 可制定司法解释
    └── 其他主体 → 可能仅为规范性文件，不具有严格意义上的"法律"效力
    │
    3.3 检查是否超越立法权限
    │
    ├── 是否涉及法律保留事项？
    │   （《立法法》第11条：犯罪和刑罚、对公民政治权利的剥夺和限制
    │     人身自由的强制措施和处罚、税种的设立税率的确定和税收征收管理
    │     等基本制度、对非国有财产的征收征用、民事基本制度、基本经济制度、
    │     诉讼制度和仲裁基本制度等，只能制定法律）
    │
    ├── 部门规章是否超出执行性立法范围？
    │
    └── 地方性法规是否与上位法抵触？
    │
    3.4 确定规范层级
    │
    └── 按照1.3节层级体系定位

Legislative authority quick reference table:

Matter type	Lowest level with authority to enact	Legal basis
Crimes and penalties	Law (absolute reservation)	Article 11, Item (1) of the Legislation Law
Compulsory measures and penalties restricting personal freedom	Law (absolute reservation)	Article 11, Item (2) of the Legislation Law
Establishment of tax types and determination of tax rates	Law (absolute reservation)	Article 11, Item (3) of the Legislation Law
Expropriation and requisition of non-state-owned property	Law (absolute reservation)	Article 11, Item (4) of the Legislation Law
Basic civil system	Law	Article 11, Item (5) of the Legislation Law
Basic economic system	Law	Article 11, Item (6) of the Legislation Law
Litigation system and basic arbitration system	Law	Article 11, Item (7) of the Legislation Law
Specific matters of administrative management	Administrative regulations/local regulations	Relevant provisions of the Legislation Law
Implementation of laws/administrative regulations	Departmental rules/local government rules	Articles 91 and 93 of the Legislation Law

Step 4: Norm conflict check

Purpose: Identify whether there is a conflict between the legal provision to be examined and other legal norms, and determine the rule of priority application.

Operating procedure:

4.1 纵向冲突检查（不同层级之间）
    │
    ├── 与宪法是否抵触？
    ├── 下位法与上位法是否矛盾？
    │   规则：上位法优于下位法（《立法法》第99条）
    │
    4.2 横向冲突检查（同一层级之间）
    │
    ├── 同一机关制定的法律之间是否矛盾？
    │   ├── 一般法与特别法 → 特别法优于一般法
    │   ├── 新法与旧法 → 新法优于旧法
    │   └── 新的一般规定与旧的特别规定 → 不能确定如何适用时，
    │       由制定机关裁决（《立法法》第103条）
    │
    ├── 地方性法规与部门规章之间的冲突？
    │   → 由国务院提出意见：
    │     适用地方性法规 → 适用地方性法规
    │     适用部门规章 → 提请全国人大常委会裁决
    │     （《立法法》第104条）
    │
    ├── 部门规章之间的冲突？
    │   → 由国务院裁决（《立法法》第105条）
    │
    └── 地方政府规章之间的冲突？
        → 同一省份内由省级政府裁决
        → 不同省份由国务院裁决
    │
    4.3 特殊冲突规则
    │
    ├── 经济特区法规 → 在本经济特区范围内可变通法律/行政法规
    ├── 自治条例/单行条例 → 可依法变通法律/行政法规
    └── 授权立法 → 在授权范围内可突破现行法律规定

Conflict resolution rules quick-reference matrix:

Type of conflict	Applicable rule	Legal basis	Adjudicating authority
Constitution vs. law	Constitution prevails	Article 5 of the Constitution	National People's Congress/Standing Committee of the National People's Congress
Law vs. administrative regulation	Law prevails	Article 99 of the Legislation Law	—
Law vs. local regulation	Law prevails	Article 99 of the Legislation Law	—
Administrative regulation vs. local regulation	Administrative regulation prevails	Article 99 of the Legislation Law	—
Administrative regulation vs. departmental rule	Administrative regulation prevails	Article 99 of the Legislation Law	—
Local regulation vs. local government rule	Local regulation prevails	Article 99 of the Legislation Law	—
Same authority: special law vs. general law	Special law prevails	Article 103 of the Legislation Law	—
Same authority: new law vs. old law	New law prevails	Article 103 of the Legislation Law	—
Same authority: new general law vs. old special law	If it cannot be determined, request a ruling	Article 103 of the Legislation Law	Enacting authority
Local regulation vs. departmental rule	The State Council provides its opinion	Article 104 of the Legislation Law	State Council/Standing Committee of the National People's Congress
Departmental rule vs. departmental rule	The State Council rules	Article 105 of the Legislation Law	State Council

Step 5: Special validity rule check

Purpose: Handle special circumstances in the validity of legal norms.

Checklist:

5.1 溯及力检查
    │
    ├── 一般原则：法不溯及既往
    ├── 例外情形：
    │   ├── 刑法：从旧兼从轻原则（《刑法》第12条）
    │   ├── 民法：有利溯及（部分司法解释规定）
    │   └── 行政法：新法明确规定溯及既往的
    │
    5.2 过渡条款检查
    │
    ├── 新法是否设有过渡期？
    ├── 过渡期内旧法是否继续适用？
    └── 过渡期的起止时间？
    │
    5.3 地域效力检查
    │
    ├── 全国性法律 → 全国范围有效（港澳台除外，除非纳入基本法附件三）
    ├── 地方性法规 → 仅在本行政区域内有效
    └── 经济特区法规 → 仅在经济特区范围内有效
    │
    5.4 对人效力检查
    │
    ├── 是否仅适用于特定主体？（如军人、公务员）
    ├── 是否涉及外国人/无国籍人的适用问题？
    └── 是否涉及法人与自然人的区分适用？
    │
    5.5 司法解释的特殊效力规则
    │
    ├── 司法解释的效力低于法律、行政法规
    ├── 司法解释不得超越法律规定创设新的权利义务
    ├── 新旧司法解释冲突时，一般适用新司法解释
    └── 司法解释的时间效力通常与其解释的法律一致

Step 6: Comprehensive validity determination and output

Purpose: Summarize the check results of the first five steps to form the final validity determination.

Determination logic:

IF 时间效力 = 已废止/已失效/尚未生效
   THEN 最终判定 = 对应状态（不再继续检查）

ELSE IF 时间效力 = 已修正/修订
   THEN 标记需使用最新版本
        继续对最新版本进行层级和冲突检查

ELSE IF 层级效力 = 制定主体无权/超越权限
   THEN 最终判定 = 效力存疑（标注原因）
        提示：该规范可能因违反上位法而不被适用

ELSE IF 存在规范冲突
   THEN 根据冲突解决规则确定优先适用的规范
        标注冲突情况及解决方案

ELSE
   最终判定 = 现行有效

III. Common fields and legal source comparison

Legal field	Core law	Common supporting regulations/judicial interpretations	Key points of validity check
Contract disputes	Contract Part of the Civil Code	Judicial Interpretations on the Contract Part (I) (II)	Note that the Contract Law has been repealed; whether the old judicial interpretations still apply
Tort liability	Tort Liability Part of the Civil Code	Judicial Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Injury	Compensation standards may vary due to local regulations
Labor disputes	Labor Law, Labor Contract Law	Implementing Regulations of the Labor Contract Law, labor arbitration rules of various localities	Local regulations vary greatly; pay attention to hierarchy
Criminal cases	Criminal Law and its amendments	Judicial interpretations of various offenses	Temporal effect of amendments to criminal law (lex mitior and retroactivity)
Administrative penalties	Administrative Penalty Law (2021)	Penalty measures in various fields	The 2021 revision introduced major changes; pay attention to the transition between the old and new versions
Corporate governance	Company Law (2023 revision)	Judicial Interpretations of the Company Law (I) to (V)	Effective July 1, 2024; pay attention to transitional rules
Intellectual property	Patent Law, Trademark Law, Copyright Law	Various implementing regulations and judicial interpretations	All three laws have been amended in recent years; verifying the version is key
Real estate	Property Rights Part of the Civil Code	Interim Regulations on Real Estate Registration	The Property Law has been repealed; pay attention to updating citations
Taxation	Laws/interim regulations for various taxes	Implementing rules and State Taxation Administration announcements	Some taxes still exist in the form of interim regulations
Environmental protection	Environmental Protection Law (2014)	Various pollution prevention and control laws and the Environmental Impact Assessment Law	Local standards may be stricter than national standards

IV. Verification and Screening Rules

4.1 Priority Rules for Validity Verification

When conducting validity checks, follow this order of priority:

优先级1（阻断性检查）：时间效力
  → 如果法律已废止/失效，直接终止，无需继续检查
  
优先级2（基础性检查）：制定主体与层级
  → 确认规范的"身份"正确

优先级3（关系性检查）：规范冲突
  → 在确认规范本身有效后，检查与其他规范的关系

优先级4（补充性检查）：特殊效力规则
  → 处理溯及力、过渡条款等细节问题

4.2 Reliability Grading of Information Sources

Reliability level	Information source	Usage recommendation
Grade A (authoritative)	National Laws and Regulations Database (flk.npc.gov.cn), Legal Information Network of the Chinese Government, official website of the National People's Congress	Use first; may be cited directly
Grade B (reliable)	PKULaw, Wolters Kluwer, China Judgments Online	May be used; cross-verification recommended
Grade C (reference)	Publications by Law Press China, authoritative legal textbooks	Use as auxiliary reference
Grade D (use with caution)	General internet sources, unofficial compilations	May not be used alone as a basis for validity judgments

4.3 Screening Rules

The following circumstances should triggermandatory review：

The legal norm was issued more than 10 years agoand no amendment record is found → there may be omitted amendment information
Departmental rules or local regulationscited as the core basis → an additional check is needed for conflict with higher-level law
Judicial interpretationsissued earlier than the latest amendment time of the law they interpret → they may no longer apply
Normative documents(not laws, regulations, or rules) used as a basis → their legal binding force must be confirmed
Transitional application involving repealed lawsissue → transitional provisions need to be carefully checked

V. Output Format Templates

5.1 Single Legal Norm Validity Check Report

## 法律规范效力检查报告

### 基本信息
- **规范名称：** [完整官方名称]
- **制定机关：** [制定机关全称]
- **规范层级：** [宪法/法律/行政法规/地方性法规/部门规章/地方政府规章/司法解释/规范性文件]
- **文号：** [公布文号]
- **公布日期：** [YYYY-MM-DD]
- **施行日期：** [YYYY-MM-DD]
- **检查条款：** 第[X]条第[X]款第[X]项
- **检查时间：** [YYYY-MM-DD]

### 效力判定

| 检查维度 | 检查结果 | 详细说明 |
|----------|----------|----------|
| 时间效力 | [✅/🔄/⚠️/❌/⏳/❓] | [具体说明] |
| 层级效力 | [✅/⚠️/❓] | [具体说明] |
| 冲突检查 | [✅ 无冲突/⚠️ 存在冲突/❓ 待确认] | [具体说明] |

### 最终判定
- **效力状态：** [现行有效/已修正/部分失效/已废止/已失效/尚未生效/效力存疑]
- **置信度：** [高/中/低]（参见置信度标注体系）
- **使用建议：** [可直接引用/需更新至最新版本/不可引用/需进一步核实]

### 注意事项
- [如有修正，列出最新版本信息]
- [如有冲突，列出冲突规范及解决方案]
- [如有特殊效力规则，列出相关说明]

5.2 Batch Check Summary Table for Multiple Legal Norms

## 法律规范效力批量检查汇总

| 序号 | 规范名称 | 引用条款 | 时间效力 | 层级效力 | 冲突检查 | 最终判定 | 置信度 | 建议 |
|------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|--------|------|
| 1 | [名称] | 第X条 | [状态] | [状态] | [状态] | [判定] | [高/中/低] | [建议] |
| 2 | [名称] | 第X条 | [状态] | [状态] | [状态] | [判定] | [高/中/低] | [建议] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

### 需特别关注的问题
1. [列出需要特别注意的效力问题]
2. [列出存在冲突的规范组合及解决方案]

VI. Confidence Labeling System

6.1 Definition of Confidence Levels

Confidence	Mark	Definition	Typical Scenario
High	🟢 HIGH	The validity status can be determined, the information source is authoritative, and there are no contradictory signals	Laws explicitly marked as "currently effective" in the National Laws and Regulations Database
Medium	🟡 MEDIUM	The validity status can basically be judged, but there are factors requiring attention	The law has recently been amended but the cited provisions are unaffected; there are possible conflicts but clear rules for resolution exist
Low	🔴 LOW	The validity status cannot be determined, or there are major uncertain factors	It cannot be confirmed whether there is a latest amendment; there are conflicts that cannot be resolved through rules; the legal binding force of normative documents is unclear

6.2 Confidence Determination Rules

置信度 = HIGH，当且仅当：
  ✓ 信息来源为A级（权威来源）
  ✓ 时间效力明确（有明确的现行有效标注或废止记录）
  ✓ 层级效力无疑问
  ✓ 未发现规范冲突，或冲突有明确解决规则

置信度 = MEDIUM，当满足以下任一条件：
  △ 信息来源为B级
  △ 法律近期有修正，需确认引用条款是否受影响
  △ 存在规范冲突但有明确的解决规则
  △ 涉及过渡条款的适用

置信度 = LOW，当满足以下任一条件：
  ✗ 信息来源为C级或D级
  ✗ 无法确认是否有最新修正/废止
  ✗ 存在无法通过现有规则解决的规范冲突
  ✗ 制定主体的立法权限存疑
  ✗ 规范性文件的法律约束力不明确

6.3 Impact of Confidence on Subsequent Operations

Confidence	Subsequent Operation Requirements
🟢 HIGH	The legal provision can be directly used for legal reasoning
🟡 MEDIUM	It can be used for legal reasoning, but reservations regarding the validity check should be noted in the conclusion
🔴 LOW	Must notUse the legal provision as the basis for a definitive conclusion; the user must be advised to further verify; alternative legal bases should be sought

VII. Common Errors and Prevention

7.1 Fatal Error Table

Error Number	Error Type	Error Description	Consequence Severity	Preventive Measures
E01	Citing repealed laws	Citing legal provisions that have already been repealed as a valid basis	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Fatal	Before each citation, Step 2 temporal validity check must be performed; establish a list of common repealed laws
E02	Version confusion	Citing an old version of a legal provision rather than the latest amended/revised version	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Fatal	Confirm the latest amendment date of the law; compare the old and new provisions
E03	Hierarchy error	Citing provisions of lower-level law as higher-level law, or ignoring the priority effect of higher-level law	⭐⭐⭐⭐ Serious	Clearly mark the hierarchy of each legal norm; strictly apply the rule of priority of higher-level law in case of conflict
E04	Ignoring conflicts	Failing to discover contradictions between the legal provision to be cited and other effective legal norms	⭐⭐⭐⭐ Serious	Perform Step 4 conflict check on the core legal provisions relied upon; pay attention to multiple laws in the same field
E05	Exceeding the scope of application	Applying local regulations outside their jurisdictional area, or applying special law to general situations	⭐⭐⭐ Major	Check the territorial effect and personal effect of legal norms
E06	Misidentification of normative documents	Citing normative documents that do not have legal binding force as laws/regulations	⭐⭐⭐ Major	Strictly distinguish laws, regulations, rules, and general normative documents
E07	Misjudgment of retroactivity	Incorrectly applying a new law to conduct before its implementation, or incorrectly refusing to apply favorable retroactivity	⭐⭐⭐ Major	Clarify the relationship between the time when the case facts occurred and the time when the law took effect

7.2 Common Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: Legal Repeal After the Implementation of the Civil Code

⚠️ 陷阱描述：
《民法典》于2021年1月1日施行，同时废止了九部法律：
1. 《中华人民共和国婚姻法》
2. 《中华人民共和国继承法》
3. 《中华人民共和国民法通则》
4. 《中华人民共和国收养法》
5. 《中华人民共和国担保法》
6. 《中华人民共和国合同法》
7. 《中华人民共和国物权法》
8. 《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》
9. 《中华人民共和国民法总则》

✅ 防范措施：
- 凡涉及上述九部法律的引用，一律替换为《民法典》对应条款
- 注意：部分旧法下的司法解释经修正后仍然有效，需逐一核实
- 《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉时间效力的若干规定》
  对过渡期问题有专门规定

Pitfall 2: The Temporal Effect Trap of Judicial Interpretations

⚠️ 陷阱描述：
法律修正后，原有司法解释可能出现三种情况：
(a) 被明确废止
(b) 经修正后继续适用
(c) 未被处理但实质上与新法矛盾

✅ 防范措施：
- 查阅最高人民法院关于清理司法解释的决定
- 对比司法解释条文与其解释的法律最新版本
- 如司法解释发布时间早于法律最新修正时间，需特别警惕

Pitfall 3: The "Hidden Invalidation" of Local Regulations

⚠️ 陷阱描述：
上位法修改后，地方性法规可能未及时修改，导致：
- 形式上仍然"有效"（未被明确废止）
- 实质上与上位法矛盾（应当不予适用）

✅ 防范措施：
- 地方性法规的效力检查必须包含与上位法的一致性比对
- 关注地方人大常委会的法规清理公告
- 如发现矛盾，应适用上位法

Pitfall 4: The "Ultra Vires Legislation" of Departmental Rules

⚠️ 陷阱描述：
部门规章只能在执行法律和行政法规的范围内制定，
但实践中存在部门规章超越权限、创设新的权利义务的情况。

✅ 防范措施：
- 检查部门规章是否有上位法依据
- 部门规章不得设定减损公民权利或增加公民义务的规范
  （《立法法》第91条）
- 部门规章不得增设行政许可（《行政许可法》第17条）

Pitfall 5: The "Vacuum Zone" in the Transition Between Old and New Laws

⚠️ 陷阱描述：
新法施行、旧法废止之间可能存在时间差，
或新法对某些问题未作规定而旧法已废止。

✅ 防范措施：
- 仔细阅读新法的过渡条款（通常在附则中）
- 查阅配套的施行说明或司法解释
- 如确实存在法律空白，应如实告知用户

VIII. Handling of Special Scenarios

8.1 Scenario: Involving Legal Norms of Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan

处理规则：
1. 全国性法律在港澳特别行政区的适用：
   - 仅限于列入《基本法》附件三的全国性法律
   - 由特别行政区在当地公布或立法实施
   
2. 涉台法律问题：
   - 大陆法律一般不直接适用于台湾地区
   - 涉台民商事案件适用《涉外民事关系法律适用法》等相关规定
   
3. 效力检查要点：
   - 明确法律问题涉及的地域
   - 确认相关法律在该地域是否适用
   - 如涉及区际法律冲突，按相关冲突规范处理

8.2 Scenario: Legal Norms Are in the Process of Revision

处理规则：
1. 修订草案/征求意见稿 → 不具有法律效力，不可作为依据引用
2. 已通过但尚未施行的新法 → 标记为 ⏳ PENDING
3. 新法施行前的过渡期 → 适用现行有效的旧法
4. 应当提示用户：
   - 相关法律正在修订中
   - 修订后的法律可能改变当前的法律适用结论
   - 建议关注立法动态

8.3 Scenario: Determination of the Validity of Normative Documents

处理规则：
1. 规范性文件（红头文件）不属于法律、法规、规章
2. 法院裁判中：
   - 可以作为裁判说理的依据引用
   - 但不能作为裁判的法律依据引用
   - 法院有权对规范性文件进行附带审查（行政诉讼中）
3. 效力检查要点：
   - 明确标注其"规范性文件"性质
   - 检查是否与上位法律法规矛盾
   - 检查制定机关是否有权制定
   - 检查是否经过合法性审核和备案
   - 降低置信度等级

8.4 Scenario: The Validity of Guiding Cases and Similar Cases

处理规则：
1. 最高人民法院发布的指导性案例：
   - 不是法律规范，但具有"应当参照"的效力
   - 各级法院在审理类似案件时应当参照
   - 效力检查重点：是否仍为有效的指导性案例（是否被替换或撤销）
   
2. 其他案例：
   - 不具有法律约束力
   - 仅作为参考
   
3. 效力检查要点：
   - 确认指导性案例的编号和发布批次
   - 确认是否仍然有效
   - 确认其裁判要点是否与现行法律一致

8.5 Scenario: The Relationship Between International Treaties and Domestic Law

处理规则：
1. 中国缔结或参加的国际条约：
   - 与国内法具有同等效力（通说）
   - 国际条约与国内法冲突时，一般优先适用国际条约
     （但宪法除外；且中国声明保留的条款除外）
   
2. 效力检查要点：
   - 确认中国是否为该条约的缔约国/参加国
   - 确认条约是否已生效
   - 确认中国是否对相关条款作出保留
   - 确认是否有国内法的转化实施规定

IX. Quality Check Checklist

After completing the validity check, the agent should verify the following checklist item by item:

9.1 Completeness Check

Has a validity check been conducted for every cited legal norm?
Have all checks in the three dimensions of temporal validity, hierarchical validity, and conflict check been completed?
Have special validity rules (retroactivity, transitional provisions, territorial validity, etc.) been checked?
Has the validity status and confidence level of each legal norm been marked?

9.2 Accuracy Check

Are the names, document numbers, and dates of the legal norms accurate and correct?
Are the cited provision numbers correct (article, paragraph, item, sub-item)?
Is the latest version of the legal text cited?
Is the identification of the enacting authority correct?
Is the hierarchical positioning correct?

9.3 Consistency Check

Are the validity determination conclusions consistent with the inspection process?
Are there logical contradictions in the validity determinations among multiple legal norms?
Does the confidence level marking match the actual inspection situation?

9.4 Risk Warning Check

Has a clear warning been given for legal provisions whose validity is doubtful?
Has further verification been recommended for low-confidence determinations?
Have pending confirmation factors that may affect the validity determination been indicated?
Has the time node limitation of the validity check been communicated?

9.5 Output Specification Check

Does the output format meet the template requirements?
Have usage recommendations been provided (can be directly cited/needs updating/cannot be cited/needs verification)?
For conflicting norms, has a solution been provided?

X. Complete Examples

Example 1: Simple Scenario — Validity Check of a Single Legal Norm

Scenario Description: A user consults about the issue of contractual liability for breach of contract, and the agent retrieves Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China as the basis and needs to conduct a validity check.

Validity Check Process

Step 1: Norm Identification and Positioning

Item	Content
Norm Name	Contract Law of the People's Republic of China
Enacting Authority	National People's Congress
Document Number	Order of the President of the People's Republic of China No. 15
Promulgation Date	March 15, 1999
Effective Date	October 1, 1999
Cited Provision	Article 107 (General Provisions on Liability for Breach of Contract)

Step 2: Temporal Validity Check

Effective date: October 1, 1999 → Reached ✓
Amendment/Revision record: No separate amendment
Repeal information: Article 1260 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China explicitly provides that the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China is repealed as of January 1, 2021
Conclusion: ❌ REPEALED — Repealed as of January 1, 2021

Steps 3-5: Because Step 2 has determined repeal, mark as a blocking result, but an alternative must still be provided.

Alternative search:

Article 107 of the former Contract Law provided: "Where a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or performs them in a manner inconsistent with the agreement, it shall bear liability for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures, or compensating for losses."
Corresponding Article 577 of the Civil Code: "Where a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or performs them in a manner inconsistent with the agreement, it shall bear liability for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures, or compensating for losses."
The content of Article 577 of the Civil Code is basically consistent with Article 107 of the former Contract Law.

Step 6: Comprehensive Validity Determination

Validity Check Report

## 法律规范效力检查报告

### 基本信息
- **规范名称：** 《中华人民共和国合同法》
- **制定机关：** 全国人民代表大会
- **规范层级：** 法律（基本法律）
- **文号：** 中华人民共和国主席令第15号
- **公布日期：** 1999-03-15
- **施行日期：** 1999-10-01
- **检查条款：** 第107条
- **检查时间：** [当前日期]

### 效力判定

| 检查维度 | 检查结果 | 详细说明 |
|----------|----------|----------|
| 时间效力 | ❌ REPEALED | 已被《民法典》第1260条明确废止，废止日期2021年1月1日 |
| 层级效力 | — | 因已废止，不再检查 |
| 冲突检查 | — | 因已废止，不再检查 |

### 最终判定
- **效力状态：** 已废止
- **置信度：** 🟢 HIGH（废止信息明确，来源权威）
- **使用建议：** ❌ 不可引用。应替换为《中华人民共和国民法典》第577条。

### 注意事项
- 原《合同法》第107条的内容已被《民法典》第577条承继，内容基本一致
- 如案件事实发生在2021年1月1日之前，根据《最高人民法院关于适用
  〈中华人民共和国民法典〉时间效力的若干规定》，可能仍需适用原《合同法》
- 建议核实案件事实发生时间以确定适用法律

Example 2: Complex Scenario — Validity Check and Conflict Resolution for Multiple Legal Norms

Scenario description: An enterprise discharged pollutants in City B, Province A (a city divided into districts), and was fined by the local Ecological Environment Bureau. The enterprise disagreed with the penalty. The agent retrieved the following legal norms as the basis for analysis, and a validity check is required:

Article 59 of the Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China (2014 revision) — Daily continuous penalty
Article 99 of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law of the People's Republic of China (2018 amendment) — Specific fine amounts
Article 45 of the Environmental Protection Regulations of Province A (2019 revision) — Provincial penalty standards
Article 30 of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Management Measures of City B (issued in 2016) — Municipal penalty detailed rules
Article 11 of the Measures for Environmental Administrative Penalties of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (issued in 2010) — Penalty procedures

Validity Check Process

Norm 1: Article 59 of the Environmental Protection Law

Step 1: Norm Identification and Location

Item	Content
Norm name	Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China
Enacting authority	Standing Committee of the National People's Congress
Norm level	Law
Latest revision	Revised on April 24, 2014
Effective date	January 1, 2015
Cited provision	Article 59 (Daily continuous penalty)

Step 2: Temporal validity → The 2014 revision is the latest version and is currently valid ✅

Step 3: Hierarchical validity → Enacted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the level is law, and the authority is correct ✅

Step 4: Conflict check → As the basic law in the field of environmental protection, it is a superior law ✅

Determination: ✅ VALID | 🟢 HIGH

Norm 2: Article 99 of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law

Step 1: Norm Identification and Location

Item	Content
Norm name	Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law of the People's Republic of China
Enacting Body	Standing Committee of the National People's Congress
Normative Level	Law
Latest Amendment	Amended on October 26, 2018
Effective Date	January 1, 2016 (effective on the same day after the 2018 amendment)
Cited Provision	Article 99 (Penalty for Exceeding Emission Standards)

Step 2: Temporal Validity → The 2018 amended version is the latest version. It is necessary to confirm whether Article 99 was modified in the 2018 amendment. Upon verification, the 2018 amendment mainly involved adjustments to provisions related to institutional reform, and Article 99 was not modified. Currently valid ✅

Step 3: Hierarchical Validity → Enacted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, with the level of law, and the authority is correct ✅

Step 4: Conflict Check → Relationship with the Environmental Protection Law: the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law is a special law in the field of atmospheric pollution, while the Environmental Protection Law is a general law. On the issue of penalties for atmospheric pollution, the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law should be applied first (special law prevails over general law). There is no substantive contradiction between the two laws. ✅

Determination: ✅ VALID | 🟢 HIGH

Norm 3: Article 45 of Province A's Environmental Protection Regulations

Step 1: Norm Identification and Positioning

Item	Content
Norm Name	Province A Environmental Protection Regulations
Enacting Body	Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Province A
Normative Level	Local regulation (provincial level)
Latest Revision	2019
Cited Provision	Article 45 (Provincial Penalty Standards)

Step 2: Temporal Validity → 2019 revised version; it is necessary to confirm whether there are subsequent amendments. Assume that upon inquiry no subsequent amendments were found. ✅

Step 3: Hierarchical Validity → The Standing Committee of the Provincial People's Congress enacted a local regulation, and the authority is correct. However, note: the effectiveness of local regulations is lower than that of laws and administrative regulations. ✅

Step 4: Conflict Check → Key checkpoints:

Do the penalty standards stipulated in Article 45 conflict with Article 99 of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law?
Scenario Analysis:
- If the fine range in the provincial regulation falls within the range stipulated by national law → no conflict ✅
- If the fine range in the provincial regulation exceeds the upper limit stipulated by national law → possible conflict with superior law ⚠️
- If the fine range in the provincial regulation is lower than the lower limit stipulated by national law → conflict with superior law ⚠️

Assume that upon comparison: Article 45 of Province A's Regulations further refines the discretionary standards within the fine range stipulated in Article 99 of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law → it is a lawful refinement provision, with no conflict ✅

Determination: ✅ VALID | 🟡 MEDIUM (Local regulations need to be compared with superior law, and the confidence level is appropriately lowered)

Norm 4: Article 30 of City B's Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Management Measures

Step 1: Norm Identification and Positioning

Item	Content
Norm Name	City B Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Management Measures
Enacting Body	B Municipal People's Government
Normative Hierarchy	Local government rules (districted city)
Date of Issuance	2016
Cited Provision	Article 30 (Municipal-level Penalty Implementation Rules)

Step 2: Temporal Effect → Issued in 2016, it has been more than 8 years. Need to confirm:

Have there been subsequent amendments? → Assume that upon inquiry none were found.
The superior law (the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law) was amended in 2018 → Need to check whether this Measures are consistent with the amended superior law.

⚠️ Trigger mandatory review rule: Issued relatively early and the superior law has already been amended.

Step 3: Hierarchical Effect → B City is a districted city, and its government may formulate local government rules on ecological and environmental protection matters (Article 82 of the Legislation Law). The authority is correct ✅

Step 4: Conflict Check →

Consistency with the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law (2018 Amendment): The content of Article 30 needs to be compared article by article.
Consistency with the Environmental Protection Regulations of Province A (2019 Revision): Local government rules must not contradict local regulations.
Assume that upon comparison it is found that: a certain provision in Article 30 of the B City Measures concerning penalty procedures is inconsistent with the 2018 amended Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law.

⚠️ Conflict found:

Type of conflict: Inconsistency between a lower-level norm (local government rule) and a higher-level norm (law)
Resolution rule: A higher-level norm prevails over a lower-level norm; the provisions of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law should apply.
The part of Article 30 of these Measures that is inconsistent with the higher-level norm should not apply.

Determination: ⚠️ PARTIAL | 🟡 MEDIUM

Norm 5: Article 11 of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment's Measures for Environmental Administrative Penalties

Step 1: Norm Identification and Location

Item	Content
Norm Name	Measures for Environmental Administrative Penalties
Formulating Authority	Former Ministry of Environmental Protection (now Ministry of Ecology and Environment)
Normative Hierarchy	Departmental rule
Date of Issuance	2010
Cited Provision	Article 11

Step 2: Temporal Effect →

Issued in 2010, it has been more than 14 years.
⚠️ Trigger mandatory review rule: Issued more than 10 years ago
Upon inquiry: These Measures have been replaced by the new Measures for Ecological and Environmental Administrative Penalties issued in 2023 (Ministry of Ecology and Environment Order No. 30, effective July 1, 2023).

Conclusion: ❌ REPEALED — has been replaced by the new Measures

Replacement: The corresponding provisions of the Measures for Ecological and Environmental Administrative Penalties (2023 version) should be cited.

Determination: ❌ REPEALED | 🟢 HIGH

Batch Inspection Summary

## 法律规范效力批量检查汇总

| 序号 | 规范名称 | 引用条款 | 时间效力 | 层级效力 | 冲突检查 | 最终判定 | 置信度 | 建议 |
|------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|--------|------|
| 1 | 《环境保护法》(2014) | 第59条 | ✅ 有效 | ✅ 法律 | ✅ 无冲突 | ✅ 现行有效 | 🟢 HIGH | 可直接引用 |
| 2 | 《大气污染防治法》(2018) | 第99条 | ✅ 有效 | ✅ 法律 | ✅ 无冲突（特别法） | ✅ 现行有效 | 🟢 HIGH | 可直接引用，优先于一般法 |
| 3 | A省《环境保护条例》(2019) | 第45条 | ✅ 有效 | ✅ 地方性法规 | ✅ 在上位法范围内 | ✅ 现行有效 | 🟡 MEDIUM | 可引用，已比对上位法 |
| 4 | B市《大气污染防治管理办法》(2016) | 第30条 | ⚠️ 需复核 | ✅ 地方政府规章 | ⚠️ 部分与上位法不一致 | ⚠️ 部分失效 | 🟡 MEDIUM | 与上位法不一致部分不可引用 |
| 5 | 《环境行政处罚办法》(2010) | 第11条 | ❌ 已废止 | — | — | ❌ 已废止 | 🟢 HIGH | 不可引用，应替换为2023年新版 |

### 需特别关注的问题

1. **规范5已废止：** 原《环境行政处罚办法》(2010)已被《生态环境行政处罚办法》
   (2023)替代，必须更新引用。

2. **规范4部分失效：** B市《大气污染防治管理办法》第30条中关于处罚程序的
   部分规定与2018年修正后的《大气污染防治法》不一致，该部分不应适用。
   建议直接适用上位法规定。

3. **特别法与一般法关系：** 在大气污染处罚问题上，《大气污染防治法》(规范2)
   作为特别法优先于《环境保护法》(规范1)适用。两者不矛盾时可同时引用，
   矛盾时以《大气污染防治法》为准。

4. **层级适用顺序：** 
   法律（规范1、2）> 地方性法规（规范3）> 地方政府规章（规范4）
   在确定罚款数额时，应以法律规定的幅度为准，地方性法规的细化标准为参考。

5. **建议补充检索：** 应补充检索《生态环境行政处罚办法》(2023)中与原第11条
   对应的条款，以完善处罚程序方面的法律依据。

Appendix: Quick Reference Table of Common Repealed Laws (High-frequency Citations)

Repealed Law	Repeal Date	Basis for Repeal	Replacement Law
General Principles of Civil Law	2021-01-01	Article 1260 of the Civil Code	General Provisions of the Civil Code
General Provisions of Civil Law	2021-01-01	Article 1260 of the Civil Code	General Provisions of the Civil Code
Contract Law	2021-01-01	Article 1260 of the Civil Code	Contract Part of the Civil Code
Property Law	2021-01-01	Article 1260 of the Civil Code	Property Part of the Civil Code
Security Law	2021-01-01	Article 1260 of the Civil Code	Contract Part of the Civil Code (Security Part)
Marriage Law	2021-01-01	Article 1260 of the Civil Code	Marriage and Family Part of the Civil Code
Inheritance Law	2021-01-01	Article 1260 of the Civil Code	Inheritance Part of the Civil Code
Adoption Law	2021-01-01	Article 1260 of the Civil Code	Marriage and Family Part of the Civil Code
Tort Liability Law	2021-01-01	Article 1260 of the Civil Code	Tort Liability Part of the Civil Code
Law on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures	2020-01-01	Article 42 of the Foreign Investment Law	Foreign Investment Law
Law on Chinese-Foreign Contractual Joint Ventures	2020-01-01	Article 42 of the Foreign Investment Law	Foreign Investment Law
Law on Wholly Foreign-Owned Enterprises	2020-01-01	Article 42 of the Foreign Investment Law	Foreign Investment Law

Note: This table lists only frequently cited repealed laws and does not constitute a complete list. In actual practice, agents should always verify the latest validity status of legal norms through authoritative databases.

About this skill

Overview Table

Legal Statement

I. Core Concepts

1.1 Three Dimensions of the Validity of Legal Norms

1.2 Classification of Validity Statuses of Legal Norms

1.3 Normative Hierarchy of the Chinese Legal System

1.4 Key Legal Bases

II. Complete Workflow

2.0 Data Sources and Tool Invocation Conventions (Mandatory)

2.1 Overall Flowchart

2.2 Detailed Operations for Each Step

Step 1: Norm Identification and Location

Step 2: Temporal validity check

Step 3: Check of enacting body and hierarchical validity

Step 4: Norm conflict check

Step 5: Special validity rule check

Step 6: Comprehensive validity determination and output

III. Common fields and legal source comparison

IV. Verification and Screening Rules

4.1 Priority Rules for Validity Verification

4.2 Reliability Grading of Information Sources

4.3 Screening Rules

V. Output Format Templates

5.1 Single Legal Norm Validity Check Report

5.2 Batch Check Summary Table for Multiple Legal Norms

VI. Confidence Labeling System

6.1 Definition of Confidence Levels

6.2 Confidence Determination Rules

6.3 Impact of Confidence on Subsequent Operations

VII. Common Errors and Prevention

7.1 Fatal Error Table

7.2 Common Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: Legal Repeal After the Implementation of the Civil Code

Pitfall 2: The Temporal Effect Trap of Judicial Interpretations

Pitfall 3: The "Hidden Invalidation" of Local Regulations

Pitfall 4: The "Ultra Vires Legislation" of Departmental Rules

Pitfall 5: The "Vacuum Zone" in the Transition Between Old and New Laws

VIII. Handling of Special Scenarios

8.1 Scenario: Involving Legal Norms of Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan

8.2 Scenario: Legal Norms Are in the Process of Revision

8.3 Scenario: Determination of the Validity of Normative Documents

8.4 Scenario: The Validity of Guiding Cases and Similar Cases

8.5 Scenario: The Relationship Between International Treaties and Domestic Law

IX. Quality Check Checklist

9.1 Completeness Check

9.2 Accuracy Check

9.3 Consistency Check

9.4 Risk Warning Check

9.5 Output Specification Check

X. Complete Examples

Example 1: Simple Scenario — Validity Check of a Single Legal Norm

Validity Check Process

Validity Check Report

Example 2: Complex Scenario — Validity Check and Conflict Resolution for Multiple Legal Norms

Validity Check Process

Norm 1: Article 59 of the Environmental Protection Law

Norm 2: Article 99 of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Law

Norm 3: Article 45 of Province A's Environmental Protection Regulations

Norm 4: Article 30 of City B's Atmospheric Pollution Prevention and Control Management Measures

Norm 5: Article 11 of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment's Measures for Environmental Administrative Penalties

Batch Inspection Summary

Appendix: Quick Reference Table of Common Repealed Laws (High-frequency Citations)