structured-element-extraction

07 Structured Element Checklist

I. Overview Table

Item	Content
Capability Name	Structured Element Checklist
Capability Type	Pre-analysis / Quality Gate
Core Function	Break down a legal issue into a complete, mutually exclusive, and verifiable checklist of elements
Upstream Input	Raw materials such as case facts, legal provisions, user questions, contract texts, etc.
Downstream Output	A validated structured element checklist for use in legal reasoning, legal application, risk assessment, and other stages
Key Principles	Completeness first (better to list more than to omit), exhaust before simplifying, mark the status of each item
Quality Standard	Only after passing the "triple completeness check" may it proceed to the next stage

II. Legal Statement

Important Notice: This skill document is an operational guide for AI agents and does not constitute legal advice. The extraction of a structured element checklist depends on an accurate understanding of the constitutive requirements of specific legal fields. In actual legal services, the element checklist should be reviewed and confirmed by legal professionals with practicing qualifications. When outputting the element checklist, the AI agent should clearly mark the confidence level and prompt the user to conduct manual review of key elements.

III. Core Concepts

3.1 What Are "Structured Elements"

Structured elements refer to the result of breaking down a legal issue intothe smallest decidable units. Each element should satisfy:

• Atomicity: cannot be further meaningfully divided
• Decidability: a clear judgment of "satisfied/not satisfied/to be investigated" can be made about it
• Independence: the elements are logically mutually exclusive (MECE principle)
• Traceability: each element can be traced to specific legal provisions or jurisprudential grounds

3.2 Three Sources of Elements

Source Type	Description	Example
Statutory Elements	Constitutive requirements directly derived from explicit provisions of legal texts	The four elements of tort under Article 1165 of the Civil Code
Judicial Interpretation Elements	Derived from judicial interpretations that refine or supplement statutory elements	The Supreme People's Court's criteria for determining "business premises"
Doctrinal/Practical Elements	Derived from prevailing doctrine or judgment criteria formed in adjudicative practice	Factors for determining "substantial modification" of a contract

3.3 Element Status Annotation System

Each extracted element must be annotated with one of the following statuses:

Status Marker	Symbol	Meaning
Satisfied	✅	The existing materials can fully prove that this element is established
Not satisfied	❌	The existing materials clearly indicate that this element is not established
To be verified	⚠️	The existing materials are insufficient to determine; additional information is needed
Not applicable	➖	This element does not need to be examined under the circumstances of this case
Disputed	🔶	There is room for different interpretations as to whether this element is satisfied

3.4 Application of the MECE principle in the extraction of legal elements

MECE = Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive

• Mutually exclusive: There is no relationship of inclusion or overlap between any two elements
• Collectively exhaustive: All elements together cover all judgment dimensions of the legal issue

Typical errors that violate MECE:

• Listing "fault" and "intent" as elements at the same level (relationship of inclusion)
• Omitting the element of "causation" (not exhaustive)
• Mixing "factual issues" and "legal issues" at the same level (inconsistent classification criteria)

IV. Complete workflow

Stage 1: Identify the type of issue and determine the element framework

步骤1.1 → 识别法律问题的类型
         ├── 合同纠纷类（成立、效力、履行、违约、解除）
         ├── 侵权责任类（一般侵权、特殊侵权、产品责任等）
         ├── 犯罪构成类（四要件/三阶层）
         ├── 行政行为类（合法性审查五要素）
         ├── 程序事项类（管辖、时效、主体资格）
         └── 其他类型（根据具体领域确定）

步骤1.2 → 调取对应的标准要素框架
         - 优先使用法定构成要件
         - 法定要件不明确时，参照司法解释
         - 均无明确规定时，参照通说学理

步骤1.3 → 确认要素框架的层级结构
         - 一级要素：法定构成要件（必须全部覆盖）
         - 二级要素：对一级要素的细化分解
         - 三级要素：具体事实判断点（可选，视复杂度决定）

Stage 2: Extract and fill in elements item by item

步骤2.1 → 逐一对照要素框架，从原始材料中提取对应事实
         - 每个要素必须独立提取，不可跳过
         - 提取时直接引用原始材料中的关键语句
         - 无法提取的要素标注为"待查证"

步骤2.2 → 为每个要素标注状态（✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶）

步骤2.3 → 为每个要素记录证据/依据来源
         - 事实要素：标注来源于哪份材料的哪个部分
         - 法律要素：标注对应的法条编号

Stage 3: Completeness verification (triple verification)

第一重校验：框架完整性
  → 问：是否遗漏了标准框架中的任何一级要素？
  → 方法：将提取结果与标准框架逐一比对
  → 如有遗漏：补充该要素并标注状态

第二重校验：事实覆盖度
  → 问：原始材料中是否有尚未被任何要素"消化"的重要事实？
  → 方法：重新通读原始材料，标记未被引用的事实片段
  → 如有遗漏：判断该事实应归入哪个要素，或是否需要新增要素

第三重校验：逻辑自洽性
  → 问：各要素之间是否存在逻辑矛盾？
  → 方法：检查要素间的逻辑关系（如因果关系要素与损害结果要素是否一致）
  → 如有矛盾：标注冲突点，提示需要进一步分析

Stage 4: Output and handover

步骤4.1 → 按标准模板输出结构化要素清单
步骤4.2 → 附加完整性声明（通过/未通过三重校验）
步骤4.3 → 标注整体置信度
步骤4.4 → 列出待查证事项清单（如有）
步骤4.5 → 确认可以进入下一阶段 / 需要补充信息后再继续

V. Comparison of common fields and legal sources

5.1 Element framework for contract disputes

First-level element	Legal source	Second-level element
Proper capacity of contract parties	Article 143 of the Civil Code	Civil capacity, authority of agency, capacity of the subject
Genuine expression of intent	Article 143 of the Civil Code	No fraud, no coercion, no major misunderstanding, no obvious unfairness
Lawful content	Articles 143 and 153 of the Civil Code	Does not violate mandatory provisions, does not violate public order and good morals
Formation of contract	Articles 471-495 of the Civil Code	Offer, acceptance, reaching of consensus, formal requirements
Performance of contract	Articles 509-534 of the Civil Code	Performing subject, performance content, performance method, performance period, place of performance
Facts of breach of contract	Article 577 of the Civil Code	Non-performance, incomplete performance, delayed performance, defective performance
Liability for breach of contract	Articles 577-594 of the Civil Code	Continued performance, remedial measures, damages, liquidated damages
Grounds for exemption	Article 590 et seq. of the Civil Code	Force majeure, exemption clauses, fault of the other party

5.2 Element framework for general tort liability

First-level element	Legal source	Second-level element
Injurious act	Article 1165 of the Civil Code	Act/omission, unlawfulness of the act
Resulting damage	Article 1165 of the Civil Code	Personal injury, property damage, mental distress, certainty of damage
Causation	Article 1165 of the Civil Code	Factual causation (condition theory), legal causation (adequate causation)
Subjective fault	Article 1165 of the Civil Code	Intent/negligence, degree of fault, standard of duty of care

5.3 Framework of Elements of Crime (Four-Element System)

First-level elements	Second-level elements
Object of crime	Direct object, indirect object, target of crime
Objective aspects of crime	Harmful act, harmful result, causation, time/place/method (specific crimes)
Subject of crime	Age of criminal responsibility, criminal capacity, special subject status
Subjective aspects of crime	Intent (direct/indirect), negligence (inadvertence/overconfidence), purpose, motive

5.4 Framework of Elements for Reviewing the Legality of Administrative Acts

First-level elements	Legal source	Description
Basis of authority	Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law	Whether there is statutory authority
Fact-finding	Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law	Whether the main evidence is sufficient
Application of law	Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law	Whether the application of laws and regulations is correct
Procedural legality	Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law	Whether it complies with statutory procedure
Reasonable discretion	Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law	Whether there is abuse of authority or obvious impropriety

5.5 Framework of Elements of Labor Disputes

First-level elements	Legal source	Second-level elements
Establishment of labor relationship	Ministry of Labor and Social Security Document No. 12 [2005]	Qualification of subject, personal subordination, economic subordination, organizational subordination
Fact of employment	Article 7 of the Labor Contract Law	Actual date of employment, work content, workplace
Written contract	Article 10 of the Labor Contract Law	Whether signed, time of signing, contract term, mandatory clauses
Wages and remuneration	Article 30 of the Labor Contract Law	Wage standard, payment method, payment cycle, whether below minimum wage
Termination/ending	Articles 36-50 of the Labor Contract Law	Type of termination, grounds for termination, procedural requirements, economic compensation

VI. Verification and Screening Rules

6.1 Five Verification Rules for Element Extraction

Rule number	Rule name	Verification content	Consequences of failure
V-01	Legal source anchoring	Each first-level element must have a clear legal provision or doctrinal basis	The element shall not be used as a basis for analysis and must be reconfirmed
V-02	Atomicity test	Each lowest-level element cannot be meaningfully further divided	Must be further decomposed to the atomic level
V-03	MECE check	No overlap and no omission among elements at the same level	Element structure needs adjustment
V-04	Status annotation	Each element must have exactly one status marker	Continue only after supplementary annotation
V-05	Source traceability	Each "satisfied" element must be annotated with its factual source	Downgrade to "pending verification"

6.2 Priority rules for element screening

When the original materials contain insufficient information, handle according to the following priorities:

1. Necessary elements (Must): every item in the statutory constitutive requirements, none may be missing → must be listed, even if marked as "pending verification"
2. Important elements (Should): elements that affect the severity of legal consequences → should be listed
3. Reference elements (May): elements that have auxiliary value for the analysis but are not essential → may be listed
4. Excluded elements (Exclude): elements unrelated to this case → not listed, but briefly record the reasons for exclusion in the exclusion explanation

VII. Output format templates

Template A: Standard element checklist

## 结构化要素清单

**法律问题：** [简要描述待分析的法律问题]
**问题类型：** [合同纠纷/侵权责任/犯罪构成/行政行为/其他]
**适用框架：** [所采用的要素框架名称及法源]
**提取日期：** [YYYY-MM-DD]

### 要素清单

| 序号 | 层级 | 要素名称 | 状态 | 事实摘要 | 法源/依据 | 备注 |
|------|------|----------|------|----------|-----------|------|
| 1 | L1 | [一级要素1] | ✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶 | [对应事实] | [法条] | [补充说明] |
| 1.1 | L2 | [二级要素1.1] | ✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶 | [对应事实] | [法条] | [补充说明] |
| 1.2 | L2 | [二级要素1.2] | ✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶 | [对应事实] | [法条] | [补充说明] |
| 2 | L1 | [一级要素2] | ✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶 | [对应事实] | [法条] | [补充说明] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

### 完整性校验结果

| 校验项 | 结果 | 说明 |
|--------|------|------|
| 框架完整性 | ✅通过 / ❌未通过 | [说明] |
| 事实覆盖度 | ✅通过 / ❌未通过 | [说明] |
| 逻辑自洽性 | ✅通过 / ❌未通过 | [说明] |

### 待查证事项

1. [要素X]：需要补充[具体信息]
2. [要素Y]：需要确认[具体问题]

### 整体置信度：[高/中/低] — [简要理由]

### 结论：[可以进入下一阶段 / 需补充信息后再继续]

Template B: Concise element verification table (for quick verification scenarios)

## 要素核查表 — [法律问题简述]

**框架：** [框架名称] | **法源：** [核心法条]

- [ ] 要素1：[名称] — [状态] — [一句话说明]
- [ ] 要素2：[名称] — [状态] — [一句话说明]
- [ ] 要素3：[名称] — [状态] — [一句话说明]
- [ ] 要素4：[名称] — [状态] — [一句话说明]

**遗漏检查：** ✅无遗漏 / ⚠️存在遗漏：[说明]
**可否继续：** ✅是 / ❌否，原因：[说明]

VIII. Confidence annotation system

8.1 Single-element confidence

Confidence	Criteria	Annotation method
High	Facts clear + legal source clear + no dispute	Status marked as ✅ or ❌
Medium	Facts basically clear but details are vague, or the legal source has multiple interpretations	Status marked as 🔶
Low	Facts unclear or legal source unknown	Status marked as ⚠️

8.2 Overall checklist confidence

Overall confidence	Determination criteria
High	All first-level elements are ✅ or ❌, with no ⚠️, and all three checks pass
Medium	There are 1-2 ⚠️ or 🔶 elements, but they do not affect the core judgment, and the three checks basically pass
Low	There are more than 3 ⚠️ elements, or a core element is ⚠️, or the three checks do not pass

8.3 Relationship between confidence and next-step actions

Overall confidence	Permitted next-step operations
High	Proceed directly to the legal reasoning/legal application stage
Medium	May proceed to the next stage, but uncertain points must be clearly annotated in the analysis
Low	Must not proceed to the next stage, and information must first be supplemented or user confirmation requested

IX. Common errors and prevention

9.1 Fatal error table

Error number	Error name	Error description	Consequence severity	Preventive measures
F-01	Omission of statutory requirements	Failure to list one of the statutory constitutive requirements	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Fatal	Must first establish the complete framework of statutory elements, and compare them one by one
F-02	Confused hierarchy of elements	Listing secondary elements alongside primary elements	⭐⭐⭐⭐ Severe	Organize strictly according to the hierarchical structure, and use the same classification standard for elements at the same level
F-03	Skip verification and output directly	Deliver the checklist without performing the triple completeness check	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Fatal	Make verification a mandatory step; the verification results must appear in the output
F-04	Missing status annotations	List elements but do not annotate their satisfaction status	⭐⭐⭐⭐ Severe	Each element must have exactly one status marker
F-05	Mismatch between facts and elements	Assign a fact under the wrong element item	⭐⭐⭐⭐ Severe	After extraction, perform a retrospective check: does the fact really prove the element?
F-06	Forcing progress despite low confidence	Still entering the reasoning stage when overall confidence is "low"	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Fatal	Strictly implement the confidence-action mapping table

9.2 Common Pitfalls

Pitfall	Manifestation	Correct Practice
Replacing elements with conclusions	Directly writing "constitutes infringement" without breaking it down into the four elements	Must break it down into each independent element
Omitting negative elements	Focus only on "establishment" elements and ignore "exemption/defense" elements	Grounds for exemption and defenses are also necessary elements
Confusing facts with legal evaluation	Writing legal conclusions in the fact summary column	The fact summary records only objective facts; legal evaluation goes in the remarks column
Over-division	Splitting a simple element into more than a dozen sub-items	Splitting until it is "independently determinable" is sufficient; there is no need to pursue extreme refinement
Rigid framework	Applying the same element framework to all cases	Choose the corresponding framework according to the specific type of legal issue
Ignoring the temporal dimension	Failing to consider changes in elements caused by legal amendments	Confirm the applicable legal version and annotate the time point
Omitting procedural elements	Focus only on substantive elements and ignore limitation periods, jurisdiction, etc.	List procedural elements separately as a group

X. Handling of Special Scenarios

10.1 Intersection of Multiple Legal Relationships

Scenario: The same facts involve multiple legal relationships (such as concurrence of contract breach and tort)

Handling method:

1. Establish a separate element checklist for each legal relationship
2. Establish cross-references between the checklists (annotate shared factual elements)
3. Clearly indicate in the output: "This case involves N legal relationships, and element checklists have been established separately"
4. If there is concurrence of claims, explain the concurrence relationship in the remarks

10.2 Legal Provisions Are Ambiguous or Blank

Scenario: The legal standard for an element is unclear, and there is no directly applicable legal provision to cite

Handling method:

1. Label the legal source of this element as "prevailing academic theory" or "similar-case adjudication rules"
2. List referable similar cases or academic viewpoints (at least two)
3. Label the confidence level of this element as "medium" or "low"
4. Explain the specific source of uncertainty in the remarks

10.3 Severely Insufficient Facts

Scenario: The information provided by the user is extremely limited, and many elements cannot be determined

Handling method:

1. Still list the complete element framework (do not omit elements due to insufficient information)
2. Label all elements that cannot be determined as ⚠️
3. Generate an "information supplement request list", arranging the information the user needs to supplement by priority
4. Mark the overall confidence level as "low", and clearly state that the next stage must not be entered

10.4 Legal Application Involving Multiple Time Points

Scenario: The facts of the case span before and after a legal amendment

Handling method:

1. Determine the time point at which each factual element occurred
2. Determine the valid legal version corresponding to each time point
3. If different legal versions apply at different time points, establish separate element lists
4. Clearly mark the temporal dividing point of legal application in the output

10.5 The Parties' Focus of Dispute Does Not Fully Correspond to the Element Framework

Scenario: The focus of the parties' dispute is not on the core requirements of the standard element framework

Handling method:

1. Still complete the full extraction of the standard element framework (cannot be omitted)
2. Additionally add a "focus-of-dispute elements" section to include the issues actually disputed by the parties
3. Explain in the remarks the relationship between the focus of dispute and the standard elements

XI. Quality Checklist

Before outputting the structured element list, the AI agent must complete the following checks item by item:

Pre-check (before starting extraction)

• The type of legal issue has been clearly identified
• The correct element framework has been selected
• The applicable legal version (time point) has been confirmed
• All original materials have been read through at least once

Extraction process check

• Each first-level element has been listed (no omissions)
• Each element has been marked with a status (✅/❌/⚠️/➖/🔶)
• Each "satisfied" element has a factual summary and source annotation
• There is no overlap between elements at the same level (MECE-mutually exclusive)
• All first-level elements together cover all judgment dimensions (MECE-collectively exhaustive)
• Negative elements such as exemption grounds/defense reasons have been considered
• Procedural elements have been considered (limitation period, jurisdiction, etc., if applicable)

Pre-output check

• The triple completeness verification has all been executed and the results recorded
• The overall confidence level has been marked
• Items pending verification have been listed (if any)
• It has been clearly marked whether "the next stage may be entered" or "information needs to be supplemented"
• The output format conforms to the standard template
• No legal conclusions are mixed into the factual summary

XII. Complete Examples

Example One: Simple Scenario — Element Extraction for General Tort Liability

Original materials:

On March 15, 2024, Zhang San, while reversing a car in a shopping mall parking lot, failed to observe behind him and knocked down Li Si, who was walking past. Li Si was taken to the hospital, diagnosed with a fracture of the right leg, hospitalized for 20 days, and incurred 32,000 yuan in medical expenses. After the accident, the traffic police issued an accident determination letter, finding Zhang San fully responsible. Because Li Si was unable to work during hospitalization, he lost 15,000 yuan in wages.

---

Structured element checklist

Legal issue: Zhang San injured Li Si by reversing a car into him; can Li Si require Zhang San to bear tort liability for damages? Issue type: Tort liability (general tort — fault liability) Applicable framework: Four elements of general tort liability (Article 1165, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code) Extraction date: 2024-03-20

Element checklist

No.	Level	Element name	Status	Fact summary	Legal source/basis	Remarks
1	L1	Injurious act	✅	Zhang San knocked down Li Si while reversing	Article 1165 of the Civil Code	Injurious act in the form of an act
1.1	L2	Mode of conduct	✅	Driving in reverse (act)	—	—
1.2	L2	Unlawfulness of the act	✅	Failed to observe behind, violating the duty of safe driving	Article 22 of the Road Traffic Safety Law	The traffic police found Zhang San fully responsible
2	L1	Damage result	✅	Li Si suffered a right leg fracture and was hospitalized for 20 days	Article 1165 of the Civil Code	—
2.1	L2	Personal injury	✅	Right leg fracture	Article 1179 of the Civil Code	—
2.2	L2	Property damage	✅	Medical expenses 32,000 yuan + lost wages 15,000 yuan	Article 1179 of the Civil Code	Total 47,000 yuan
2.3	L2	Mental damage	⚠️	The materials do not mention mental damage	Article 1183 of the Civil Code	A fracture may support a claim for mental damage compensation, to be investigated
3	L1	Causation	✅	Zhang San's reversing collision directly caused Li Si's fracture	Article 1165 of the Civil Code	Factual causation is clear, supported by the traffic police determination letter
3.1	L2	Factual causation	✅	The collision was the direct cause of the fracture	—	Condition theory: without the collision, there would be no fracture
3.2	L2	Legal causation	✅	Knocking down a person while reversing and causing a fracture is a generally foreseeable result	—	Adequate causation is established
4	L1	Subjective fault	✅	Failed to observe behind, constituting negligence	Article 1165 of the Civil Code	The traffic police found full responsibility
4.1	L2	Type of fault	✅	Negligence (carelessness)	—	Should have foreseen but did not foresee
4.2	L2	Degree of fault	✅	Total fault (the traffic police found full responsibility)	Accident determination letter	—
5	L1	Exemption grounds	❌	No exemption grounds	Articles 1174-1177 of the Civil Code	—
5.1	L2	Victim's fault	❌	The materials do not show that Li Si was at fault	Article 1173 of the Civil Code	The traffic police determined that Zhang San bears full responsibility
5.2	L2	Cause by a third party	❌	The materials do not show that a third party intervened	Article 1175 of the Civil Code	—
5.3	L2	Force majeure	❌	No force majeure exists	Article 180 of the Civil Code	—
5.4	L2	Self-defense / necessity	➖	This case does not involve this	—	—
6	L1	Procedural elements	—	—	—	—
6.1	L2	Limitation of action	✅	The accident occurred on March 15, 2024, within the 3-year limitation period	Article 188 of the Civil Code	The limitation period expires on March 14, 2027
6.2	L2	Jurisdiction	⚠️	The materials do not mention a specific court	Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law	The court of the place of the tort or the defendant's domicile

Completeness check results

Check item	Result	Explanation
Framework completeness	✅ Passed	The four elements + grounds for exemption + procedural elements have all been covered
Fact coverage	✅ Passed	All facts in the original materials have been assigned to the corresponding elements
Logical consistency	✅ Passed	There are no logical contradictions among the elements

Matters pending verification

1. Mental distress (Element 2.3): It is necessary to confirm whether Li Si claims compensation for mental distress and the disability grade appraisal result for the fracture
2. Court with jurisdiction (Element 6.2): It is necessary to confirm the place where the accident occurred and the defendant's domicile to determine jurisdiction

Overall confidence: High

The core four elements (wrongful act, damage result, causation, subjective fault) are all "satisfied"; the facts are clear and the legal sources are explicit. The matters pending verification do not affect the basic judgment that tort liability is established.

Conclusion: ✅ Can proceed to the next stage (analysis of legal application and determination of liability)

---

Example 2: Complex scenario — confirmation of labor relationship + extraction of elements of unlawful termination

Original materials:

Wang Mou entered a certain technology company on June 1, 2022, serving as a software engineer with a monthly salary of 20,000 yuan; the company did not sign a written labor contract with him. Wang Mou went to the company office every day at the time required by the company (9:00-18:00), used the computer and workstation provided by the company, and accepted the work arrangements and assessments of the project manager. Wages were paid by the company monthly by bank transfer.

On August 10, 2023, the company orally notified Wang Mou that "due to business adjustments, you do not need to come tomorrow," did not explain the specific reason for termination, did not give 30 days' advance notice, and did not pay any economic compensation. Wang Mou requested that the company issue a written termination notice, but the company refused.

Wang Mou had no record of any disciplinary violation during his previous work period, and all performance assessments were "qualified" or above. The company did not pay social insurance for Wang Mou.

On September 1, 2023, Wang Mou applied to the local labor arbitration committee for arbitration, requesting: (1) confirmation of the labor relationship; (2) payment of the double wage difference for failure to sign a written labor contract; (3) payment of compensation for unlawful termination of the labor contract; (4) supplementary payment of social insurance.

---

Structured element checklist

Legal issue: Does a labor relationship exist between Wang and a certain technology company? Is the company's termination illegal? Can Wang's various claims be supported? Question type: Labor dispute (confirmation of labor relationship + illegal termination + multiple claims) Applicable framework: Elements for confirming a labor relationship + elements for the legality of termination of a labor contract Extraction date: 2024-03-20

Note: This case involves multiple legal issues, and element lists are established separately.

---

Element List One: Confirmation of Labor Relationship

Applicable framework: Article 1 of the Notice on Matters Concerning the Establishment of Labor Relationships, Lao She Bu Fa [2005] No. 12

No.	Level	Element name	Status	Fact summary	Legal source/basis	Remarks
1	L1	Eligibility of subjects	✅	—	Article 1, Item (1) of Lao She Bu Fa [2005] No. 12	—
1.1	L2	Employer qualification	✅	"A certain technology company," has the qualification to employ workers	—	The company's nature remains to be further confirmed (limited company/sole proprietorship, etc.)
1.2	L2	Worker qualification	✅	Wang is a natural person and serves as a software engineer	—	Age is not mentioned; presumed to meet the statutory working age
2	L1	Personal subordination	✅	—	Article 1, Item (2) of Lao She Bu Fa [2005] No. 12	—
2.1	L2	Compliance with rules and regulations	✅	Works at the time required by the company (9:00-18:00)	—	Fixed working hours
2.2	L2	Accepts management and direction	✅	Accepts work arrangements and assessments from the project manager	—	Clear management hierarchy relationship
2.3	L2	Designated workplace	✅	Works at the company office	—	—
3	L1	Economic subordination	✅	—	Article 1, Item (3) of Lao She Bu Fa [2005] No. 12	—
3.1	L2	Labor remuneration	✅	Monthly salary of 20,000 yuan, paid monthly by bank transfer	—	Fixed salary, not project settlement
3.2	L2	Provision of means of production	✅	The company provides a computer and workstation	—	Work tools are provided by the employer
4	L1	Organizational subordination	✅	Wang's work is part of the company's business	Article 1, Item (3) of Lao She Bu Fa [2005] No. 12	Software engineer is a core business position in a technology company

---

Element List Two: Double Wages for Failure to Sign a Written Labor Contract

Applicable framework: Articles 10 and 82 of the Labor Contract Law; Articles 6 and 7 of the Implementing Regulations of the Labor Contract Law

No.	Level	Element name	Status	Fact summary	Legal source/basis	Remarks
1	L1	Labor relationship established	✅	See Element List One	—	Preliminary element, confirmed
2	L1	No written contract signed	✅	"The company did not sign a written labor contract with him"	Article 10 of the Labor Contract Law	—
3	L1	Exceeds the statutory signing period	✅	Employment from June 1, 2022 to the termination date August 10, 2023, exceeding 1 month	Article 82 of the Labor Contract Law	More than 1 month since the start of employment without signing
4	L1	Calculation period for double wages	🔶	July 1, 2022 to May 31, 2023 (11 months)	Article 82 and Article 14, Paragraph 3 of the Labor Contract Law	After one full year, it is deemed that an open-ended contract has been concluded; double wages for a maximum of 11 months
5	L1	Arbitration limitation period	🔶	Applied for arbitration on September 1, 2023	Article 27 of the Law on Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration	Whether the 1-year arbitration limitation period applies to double wages is disputed; the double wages for July 2022 may already be time-barred, and the local adjudication approach needs to be considered
6	L1	Party at fault for not signing the contract	⚠️	The materials do not explain whether it was the company that refused to sign or Wang who refused to sign	—	It is usually presumed that the employer bears the obligation to sign, but if the worker refuses to sign, that is a different matter

---

Checklist Three: Unlawful Termination of the Labor Contract

Applicable framework: Articles 36-43, 48, and 87 of the Labor Contract Law

No.	Level	Element name	Status	Fact summary	Legal source/basis	Remarks
1	L1	Termination facts	✅	On August 10, 2023, the company orally notified "no need to come tomorrow"	—	Unilateral termination by the employer
2	L1	Legality of the termination reason	❌	Only stated "business adjustment" and did not explain the specific statutory reason	Articles 39-41 of the Labor Contract Law	—
2.1	L2	Whether it constitutes dismissal for fault (Article 39)	❌	Wang has no disciplinary record and performance is at or above qualified	Article 39 of the Labor Contract Law	Does not meet any item
2.2	L2	Whether it constitutes non-fault dismissal (Article 40)	❌	No proof of inability to perform the job / major change in objective circumstances, etc.	Article 40 of the Labor Contract Law	"Business adjustment" may involve a change in objective circumstances, but no evidence was provided
2.3	L2	Whether it constitutes economic layoff (Article 41)	⚠️	Only orally stated "business adjustment" and did not provide a layoff plan, etc.	Article 41 of the Labor Contract Law	Even if it constitutes an economic layoff, the statutory procedure was not followed
3	L1	Legality of the termination procedure	❌	—	—	—
3.1	L2	Advance notice	❌	No written notice 30 days in advance, and no payment in lieu of notice	Article 40 of the Labor Contract Law	—
3.2	L2	Written form	❌	Oral notice, refused to issue a written termination notice	Article 50 of the Labor Contract Law	—
3.3	L2	Trade union procedure	⚠️	The materials do not mention whether there is a trade union or whether the trade union was notified	Article 43 of the Labor Contract Law	To be investigated
4	L1	Economic compensation/compensation money	—	—	—	—
4.1	L2	Years of service	✅	June 1, 2022 to August 10, 2023, about 1 year and 2 months	Article 47 of the Labor Contract Law	Calculated as 1.5 months (6 months or more but less than 1 year is counted as 1 year)
4.2	L2	Monthly wage standard	✅	Monthly salary of 20,000 yuan	Article 47 of the Labor Contract Law	It is necessary to confirm whether overtime pay, bonuses, etc. are included
4.3	L2	Compensation for illegal termination	✅	Twice the standard for economic compensation	Article 87 of the Labor Contract Law	2 × 1.5 × 20000 = 60,000 yuan
5	L1	Circumstances prohibiting termination	⚠️	The materials do not mention whether Wang was in a medical period, pregnancy, etc.	Article 42 of the Labor Contract Law	To be investigated; if it exists, it further aggravates the illegality

---

Checklist Four: Social Insurance Arrears Payment

No.	Level	Element name	Status	Fact summary	Legal source/basis	Remarks
1	L1	Duration of the labor relationship	✅	June 1, 2022 to August 10, 2023	—	—
2	L1	Fact of failure to pay social insurance	✅	"The company did not pay social insurance for Wang"	Article 58 of the Social Insurance Law	—
3	L1	Scope of arbitration acceptance	🔶	Whether social insurance arrears payment falls within the scope of labor arbitration acceptance	—	Most regions believe that social insurance arrears payment falls within the scope of administrative management and is not within the scope of arbitration acceptance, and a complaint should be filed with the social insurance department; arbitration in some regions may accept it

---

Completeness verification results

Verification item	Result	Explanation
Framework completeness	✅Passed	Independent checklists of elements have been established for all four legal issues, and the elements in each checklist are complete
Fact coverage	✅Passed	All facts in the original materials have been classified into corresponding elements; the performance assessment records are classified under Item 2.1 of Checklist Three
Logical consistency	✅Passed	The checklists are logically consistent with one another, and the conclusion of Checklist One serves as a prerequisite element for Checklists Two, Three, and Four

Matters to be verified (arranged by priority)

1. [High priority] Party at fault for failure to sign the contract (Checklist Two - Element 6): It is necessary to confirm whether the company did not take the initiative to sign or Wang refused to sign
2. [High priority] Trade union procedure (Checklist Three - Element 3.3): It is necessary to confirm whether the company has a trade union
3. [Medium priority] Circumstances prohibiting termination (Checklist Three - Element 5): It is necessary to confirm whether Wang was in a special protection period such as a medical period or pregnancy
4. [Medium priority] Arbitration limitation period for double wages (Checklist Two - Element 5): It is necessary to confirm the local arbitration commission's adjudication approach to the limitation period for double wages
5. [Medium priority] Scope of acceptance for social insurance arrears payment (Checklist Four - Element 3): It is necessary to confirm whether the local arbitration commission accepts requests for social insurance arrears payment
6. [Low priority] Nature of the company entity (Checklist One - Element 1.1): It is necessary to confirm the company's specific form of organization
7. [Low priority] Composition of monthly wages (Checklist Three - Element 4.2): It is necessary to confirm whether the 20,000 yuan is all labor remuneration

Overall confidence: Medium

Reason: Confirmation of labor relationship (Checklist 1) has high confidence, and all four elements have been satisfied. Unlawful termination (Checklist 3) has high confidence in the core determination (both the termination grounds and procedure are unlawful). However, there are regional differences in the statute of limitations issue for double wages and the acceptance scope for social insurance back payments, which require further confirmation. Overall, the analytical basis for the core claims (confirmation of labor relationship + compensation for unlawful termination) is sufficient, and the next stage can be entered, but uncertain points need to be flagged in the analysis.

Conclusion: ✅ The next stage can be entered (legal application and claim assessment), but the above 7 matters pending verification need to remain flagged in the analysis, and the user should be advised to supplement high-priority information.