Authority Triage EN - route the source before the answer

Authority Triage EN - route the source before the answer

Philosophy

Before a legal answer exists, you need to know which source controls it. A model that starts from the conclusion and then shops for a provision works in the wrong order - first the layer map, then the research, then the thesis.

This skill is the layer BEFORE grounding. Three skills, three jobs:

• authority-triage-en (this skill) says WHERE to look and IN WHAT ORDER,
• citation-grounding-pl verifies WHETHER a quote and citation are real,
• legal-request-router-pl decides WHAT level of control the result gets.

The skill gives no legal advice. It produces a source map and a verification order. The output is a draft that goes through the human gate.

When to use

• An EU or member-state legal question with no single obvious source ("can a controller...", "is this clause enforceable...", "what sanctions apply under...").
• The user asks directly: where to check this, what prevails, where to start, what the hierarchy is.
• Before firing connectors - so queries follow the layer order instead of hitting databases at random.
• Whenever a directive may be in play (transposition status changes the answer) or two instruments may collide.

What it does NOT do

• Does not verify quote content or citation existence - that is citation-grounding-pl.
• Does not assess stakes or pick a control path - that is legal-request-router-pl.
• Does not answer the legal question on the merits - it delivers a map, not a conclusion.
• Does not fetch sources itself - it names the connector, the connector fetches.
• Does not resolve a national-constitution vs EU-primacy standoff - that collision is flagged to the human.

Layer map

Layer 1 - EU primary law

Layer 2 - EU secondary law

Primacy: on collision between national law and EU law, EU law prevails (Costa v ENEL, 6/64); direct effect since Van Gend en Loos (26/62). A collision between EU law and a national constitution is not resolved here - flag it to the human.

Layer 3 - case law

Layer 4 - national chain

For every member state involved, map the same chain: constitution -> statutes -> executive regulations -> local acts. Internal administrative acts bind the administration, not the citizen. The exact chain is national - if the member state is unknown, ask; if the national provision cannot be confirmed in a database this session, tag it [TO VERIFY].

Layer 5 - soft law (not a source of law; reliance on it can shield the addressee)

Soft law never wins a collision with a statute or a regulation. Cite it as regulator practice, clearly separated from the norm.

Workflow

1. Classify the question into layers. Which layers can control the answer? Usually 2-3 (e.g. GDPR: EU regulation + national act filling the opening clauses + EDPB guidelines + CJEU case law).

2. Set the verification order. Top layer down: the higher norm frames the question before you read the implementing act or regulator practice. Soft law is read LAST, against the norm.

3. Check collisions. Rules: lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior (but a later general norm does not displace an earlier special one) plus EU primacy over national statutes. For directives, the collision check includes the transposition gap: national act missing, late or defective. A collision the rules cannot close goes to the human gate.

4. Point to the connector for each layer:

   Layer	Connector
   EU law, CJEU case law (EUR-Lex / Cellar)	eu-sparql-search
   National legislation (ELI)	national *-eli-mcp from the MateMatic line (e.g. sejm-eli-mcp for PL)
   EU digital / data / cyber compliance acts	mcp-eu-compliance
   French legislation and codes	mcp-fr-legal
   German legislation	mcp-de-legal [TO VERIFY availability - pre-release]

5. Flag the temporal version. Three questions, every time:

   • law as of the DATE OF THE EVENT or as of today? (dispute research = version in force at the event; compliance = version in force now),
   • vacatio legis / application date - EU acts often split entry into force and date of application (the GDPR pattern: in force 2016, applying 2018),
   • transitional provisions - does the old norm still govern pending cases.

Output format

Return exactly this template:

# Source map: [the question in one sentence]

Law as of: [event date / today - justify the choice]
Member state(s): [list or "EU level only"]

| Layer | Act / source | Connector | Verification status | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU primary | [treaty / Charter article] | eu-sparql-search | verified / to check | [Art. 51 CFR scope?] |
| EU secondary | [regulation / directive / decision + article] | eu-sparql-search / mcp-eu-compliance | verified / to check | [transposition? direct effect? application date?] |
| CJEU | [case, e.g. C-xxx/xx] | eu-sparql-search | to check | [settled line or isolated ruling?] |
| National statute | [act + article] | *-eli-mcp / mcp-fr-legal (DE: [TO VERIFY availability]) | verified / to check | [temporal version, vacatio legis] |
| National courts | [apex court ruling] | national connector / manual | to check | [authority without precedent] |
| Soft law | [EDPB / ESMA / EBA guideline] | manual | to check | [not a source of law] |

## Verification order
1. [source] - because [hierarchy rule]
2. ...

## Collisions
[lex superior / specialis / posterior / EU primacy / transposition gap -
or "none detected"; unresolvable collision -> human gate]

## Temporal flags
[provision version, vacatio legis / application date, transitional rules -
or "none"]

## For the human gate
[what needs a lawyer's decision before an answer is generated]

Any article number not confirmed in a database this session gets the [TO VERIFY] tag - never present a number from memory as certain.

Human gate

The source map is a research draft, not a legal answer. A qualified human:

• approves the temporal choice (event date vs today),
• resolves collisions the rules cannot close (especially national constitution vs EU primacy),
• judges whether a case-law line is current,
• takes responsibility for the answer built on this map.

Nothing goes to a client on the strength of the map alone.

Companion skills

• citation-grounding-pl - next step: verify that fetched quotes and citations are real.
• legal-request-router-pl - the layer above the result: which control path (plain answer / grounding / adversarial debate / audit bundle).
• saos-orzecznictwo, eu-sparql-search - the connectors this map routes to.
• legal-data-hunter-pl - when a layer has no connector and a data source must be found first.

Shared rules of the eu-law-sources plugin (EU law sources)

These rules apply to every skill in this plugin, including where the skill itself is silent. They are copied into each skill, so they hold whether you install the whole plugin or a single skill.

Sources, not memory

This plugin searches and fetches EU law (legislation and CJEU case law) through an MCP connector (read-only, public EUR-Lex / Cellar SPARQL). Every legal claim belongs to a class:

• Verified - confirmed in the database, with an identifier: (Case C-311/18, CJEU), (CELEX 32016R0679).
• Check - plausible, not yet confirmed: [verify on EUR-Lex].
• Do not use - a CELEX or case number with no match. Omit it, never fabricate.

A case number that exists is not enough - check that the judgment decides what you cite. Whether case law is still good law is a human assessment.

Connector in this plugin

.mcp.json declares the EU SPARQL connector (EUR-Lex / Cellar, read-only, public data). It needs node/npx in the environment. This is EU-level, language-neutral law - national law of a specific member state is out of scope here.

Human gate

Output is a draft for review. Nothing is sent or filed before a qualified person checks it and takes professional responsibility.