| name | legal-syllogism-en |
| description | Builds the explicit legal syllogism for an issue - lays out the major premise (the rule and its interpretation), the minor premise (the material facts), the application (subsuming facts under each element of the rule), and the conclusion, then flags the weak links: unstated assumptions, contested facts, debatable interpretation. Forces every step to be said out loud and checkable instead of jumping from facts to a holding. Maps to civil-law subsumption and common-law IRAC/CREAC. Jurisdiction-neutral method: it supplies no rule and checks no citation, so the major premise has to come from a source you trust. Use when: "build the syllogism", "lay out the legal reasoning", "apply the rule to the facts", "IRAC this", "where is the gap in the argument", "major and minor premise", "structure the analysis" - when drafting an opinion, brief, or memo.
|
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| allowed-tools | ["Read"] |
| data-residency | local |
| requires-human-approval | false |
| pii-egress | none |
| attribution | {"source":"Fuzi.Mingcha (irlab-sdu)","license":"not-stated","relationship":"pattern-only","note":"The legal syllogism (subsumption; the IRAC and CREAC schemas in common law) is a classical method of legal reasoning. The idea of an explicit syllogism scaffold for AI is inspired in part by Fuzi.Mingcha (major premise, minor premise, conclusion). No use of its code or models; rules and format written from scratch. English counterpart of subsumpcja-pl.\n"} |
| metadata | {"author":"Wiesław Mazur / MateMatic","version":"1.0.0","companion_skills":"adversarial-legal-review-en, reviewer-en, humanizer-en"} |
Legal syllogism - make the reasoning explicit
Philosophy
A flawed opinion rarely fails at the conclusion - it fails at the premise nobody stated. Legal
reasoning is a syllogism: the rule (major premise), the facts (minor premise), the application, and
the conclusion. When a step is left unsaid - "because it's obvious" - that is where the gap hides,
and that is where the other side, or the court, will strike. This skill forces each step to be
stated and marks what is settled and what is contested.
It structures the reasoning; it does not decide the case. Judgement and the decision stay with
the lawyer.
Method (subsumption / IRAC)
- Major premise (rule + interpretation) - identify the governing rule, then its reading: how
each element of the rule is construed (text, structure, purpose). Note where authority or
commentary splits.
- Minor premise (material facts) - list the facts that matter to the rule's elements. Separate
undisputed facts from contested ones, and facts from characterisations.
- Application (subsumption) - for each element of the rule, show which fact satisfies it (or
does not). This is the real work: matching fact to element.
- Conclusion - the legal consequence that follows from the application.
- Weak-link test - mark which elements are contested in interpretation, which facts are
contested on the evidence, and which assumptions were made silently. This is the map for
adversarial-legal-review-en.
Output format
ISSUE: <the legal question>
MAJOR PREMISE (rule): <provision/authority> - "<elements>"
Interpretation: <how the elements are read; any split in authority>
MINOR PREMISE (material facts):
- undisputed: <...>
- contested (evidence): <...>
APPLICATION (element -> fact):
- <element 1> : satisfied by <fact> | NOT satisfied | contested
- <element 2> : ...
CONCLUSION: <legal consequence>
WEAK LINKS (for adversarial-legal-review-en):
- interpretation: <which element is contested and why>
- facts: <what needs proof>
- silent assumptions: <...>
Limits
- The syllogism orders reasoning - it does not perform interpretation or fact-finding. Whether the
rule, its reading, and the facts are right is for the lawyer.
- It does not weigh competing arguments (that is adversarial-legal-review-en) - it arranges them so
attack and verification have something to work on.
- Subsumption assumes a rule with elements. For open-textured standards and the balancing of
principles, a pure syllogism is not enough - mark it as balancing, not subsumption.
Attribution
The legal syllogism (subsumption; IRAC/CREAC) is a classical method of legal reasoning. The idea of
an explicit syllogism scaffold for AI is inspired in part by (irlab-sdu) - without
using its code or models. Rules, format, and framing are MateMatic's own. MateMatic interpretation,
not the position of any bar or regulator.
