Law · concept

Law / Jura.

German law, studied the way it is actually studied: find the norm, spot the issue, build the argument, check the counterargument, verify every source, subsume the facts, state the result. Every legal statement stays visibly tied to the kind of source it came from.

GERMAN LAW · DE FIRST. Interface navigation stays English, like the rest of the Knowledge Universe — but the legal content itself (norms, method, argument) is German, because German legal method does not translate cleanly into another legal system.

Education, research and study support only. Not legal advice, not representation in a real dispute, no filing, no lawyer replacement. No client files, no confidential matters, no real legal-document upload — the case below is invented for teaching.

Jurisdiction

German law, first.

A legal question only makes sense inside a jurisdiction — mixing them quietly would be dishonest. This concept starts with one.

Germany EUUkrainePolandOther national systems

Examples only. No other jurisdiction has real content in this prototype; jurisdiction selection is future functionality.

Step 1

Where are you?

Two paths are built deep this iteration. The rest show the structure and are honest roadmap.

Core principle

Source classes never merge.

An AI conclusion must never look like statutory text, a court holding, or a literature quote. Every statement in the case flow below carries one of these, visibly:

§ STATUTE the law itself ⚖ COURT DECISION how a court applied it ◆ OFFICIAL MATERIAL legislative materials, guidance 📖 LITERATURE scholarly opinion — persuasive, not binding AI ANALYSIS this prototype's own synthesis — never a source

These are how the universal source-quality tiers (see the Library model) present for law. AI ANALYSIS is never treated as an authoritative source.

Step 2

The one deep flow: a full case.

One synthetic problem, worked end to end — the only way to show whether this architecture really holds for a source-heavy, jurisdiction-dependent subject.

Legal problem → Find norm → Identify issue → Build argument → Counterargument → Source check → Subsumption → Result

Includes the Gutachtenstil structure (Obersatz · Definition · Subsumtion · Ergebnis) — the German legal study method, not presented as universal — and a Common Table where three perspectives check each other and disagreement is not forced into false agreement.

What this builds

Learning progress only.

NormenfindungProblemerkennungGutachtenstilSubsumtionArgumentationQuellenarbeitFallstruktur

A map you walk, not a score you defend — no leaderboard, no public ranking, no fake grades. Same principle as School's game layer.

Library & contribution

Reused, not rebuilt.

Law uses the same Community Library, My Study Space, Rights Profile and Contribution Lifecycle as every other world — see the universal library model. No separate, incompatible Law library exists.

Law-specific contribution examples (future, not enabled in this prototype): official source mapping, a case summary written by a contributor, an original schema, original flashcards, an original case solution, a source correction, literature metadata, an original explanation. Commercial textbooks, commentaries and databases remain rights-dependent, exactly like in Medicine.

Future roles

Designed to be reviewed by a student.

This flow is deliberately built so a law student can later judge it on the things that matter to actual study: usefulness, clarity, a realistic study workflow, relevance to a Hausarbeit or Klausur, and how sources are presented — not on how it looks.

Future reviewer role: Kristina — Student Co-Designer / Student Reviewer. Not a legal authority, not a lawyer, not a professional reviewer. No private files, coursework or personal data are used here.

Start the case (Gutachtenstil) ← Knowledge Universe Library model