update

AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+人与助手之间的语言交互默认为简体中文。
+python 要使用 uv run 运行。
+不要随意创建说明文档(比如 .md)，除非用户有要求。

en_cases_hkca/2000_HKCA_341/summary-fast.yml

@@ -3,18 +3,16 @@ plaintiff:
 - Hong Kong Washington Company
 defendant:
 - Next Magazine Publishing Ltd
-- CHEUNG Kim-hung
-- Toppan Printing Co (HK) Ltd
-- YEUNG Wai-hong
-- LEE Kwong-fung
 jurisdiction_code: HKCA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: >-
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  1st plaintiff, Dr Paul Ki Ping-ki, appeals against Yuen J's decision made on 2 May 2000 regarding an
+case_reason: "1st plaintiff, Dr Paul Ki Ping-ki, appeals against Yuen J's decision made on 2 May 2000\
+  \ regarding an application for leave to appeal out of time from an order made by Registrar Chu on 30\
+  \ May 1999, in "
 case_object:
-- leave to appeal out of time from an order made by Registrar Chu on 30 May 1999
+- leave to appeal
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Appeal against Registrar's order (liability issue)
   result: Dismissed. The Judge had carefully decided the matter and considered all relevant factors regarding
@@ -28,9 +26,11 @@ judgment_result:
     against Next, and her decision was sought by Dr Ki. There was no mistake as alleged by Dr Ki that
     he had made.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this appeal (CACV 175/2000), Dr Paul Ki Ping-ki and Hong Kong Washington Company appealed against
+  In this appeal against Yuen J's decision regarding leave to appeal out of time from an order made by
-  Yuen J's decision granting leave to Next Magazine Publishing Ltd, CHEUNG Kim-hung, Toppan Printing Co
+  Registrar Chu, the Court dismissed all charges: (1) The Judge correctly decided on the exercise of discretion
-  (HK) Ltd, YEUNG Wai-hong, and LEE Kwong-fung to set off a debt owed by Dr Ki. The core issues rev
+  whether to grant an extension for Dr Ki to appeal; (2) A letter from the Official Receiver did not amount
+  to a contempt of court; (3) Registrar Chu had jurisdiction over the judgment sum. The Court upheld Yuen
+  J's decision.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Leong JA
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkca/2013_HKCA_16/summary-fast.yml

@@ -2,11 +2,13 @@ plaintiff: []
 defendant:
 - POON LOK MAN (潘樂民)
 jurisdiction_code: HKCA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Appellant appeals against his sentence of 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment for dealing with funds,
+  Appellant appeals against his sentence of 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment for dealing with property
+  known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.
 case_object:
 - sentence reduction
 judgment_result:
@@ -16,26 +18,23 @@ judgment_result:
     than that of an offender who is 'used' for money laundering without knowledge of the crime behind
     the proceeds.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In HKSAR v POON LOK MAN (潘樂民), the appellant appealed his sentence of 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment
+  The case involved POON LOK MAN appealing his sentence for dealing with proceeds of an indictable offence.
-  for dealing with funds, arguing for a reduction in sentence. The case involved three charges related
+  The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence from 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment to 2 years, considering
-  to property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, where PW1 and PW
+  his role was less culpable than that of a 'used' money launderer without knowledge of the crime. Evidence
+  showed he withdrew funds within days after they were deposited into his accounts at the request of Ah
+  Yung. Key laws cited included sections 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Cheung JA
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: Barma JJA
-  reason: Judge in the Court of Appeal who heard the appeal with Hon Cheung JA.
+  reason: Co-presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: HKSAR
-  reason: Respondent in the case, representing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
 - entity_name: POON LOK MAN (潘樂民)
-  reason: Appellant in the case who pleaded guilty to three charges of dealing with property known or
+  reason: Appellant in the case.
-    believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.
 - entity_name: HH Judge Douglas Yau
-  reason: District Court judge who originally sentenced the appellant to 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment.
+  reason: Judge who originally sentenced the appellant, responsible for fact-finding and sentencing.
-- entity_name: PW1
+- entity_name: Ms Flora Cheng
-  reason: Person deceived by investment and lottery fraud, remitted HK$355,251.90 into one of the appellant’s
+  reason: Lawyer representing the appellant in this appeal.
-    bank accounts (charge 1).
-- entity_name: PW2
-  reason: Person deceived by investment and lottery fraud, remitted HK$547,969 and HK$618,835.31 into
-    one of the appellant’s bank accounts (charge 3).
 - entity_name: Ah Yung
-  reason: Person who had a connection with the inward remittance of HK$618,835.31.
+  reason: Individual mentioned as having a connection with the appellant's bank accounts.

en_cases_hkca/2013_HKCA_328/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,22 +1,25 @@
 plaintiff: []
 defendant:
 - HKSAR
-- MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA
 jurisdiction_code: HKCA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Defendant pleaded not guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs, claiming coercion due to a prior kid
+  Defendant pleaded not guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs, claiming coercion due to a previous
+  kidnapping and threats against his family.
 case_object:
-- work and travel arrangements
+- trafficking in dangerous drugs
-- coercion
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction out of time (liability issue)
   result: Dismissed. The judge did not misdirect the jury on the concept of 'evasive action' and adequately
     referred to the Applicant's evidence regarding his father’s position.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在本案中，被告MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA因涉嫌走私危险毒品被起诉。他辩称自己是在被迫的情况下吞下了毒品，并声称其父亲曾遭绑架，因此被威胁要杀害其家人以迫使他配合。法院审理了控方关于他在2008年7月6日通过腹部异常携带并排出大量海洛因的指控。被告在庭审中坚称自己无辜，并表示之前曾被迫吞下毒品以换取前往广州的机会。最终，高等法院上诉庭认为原审法官对“规避行为”的概念没有误导陪审团，并且充分考虑了被告关于其父亲被绑架的证据。因此，驳回了被告提出的超出时效的上诉申请。
+  In HKSAR v. Mbugua James Waigwa, the defendant appealed out of time against a conviction for trafficking
+  in dangerous drugs. The court dismissed his application, finding no misdirection by the trial judge
+  on 'evasive action.' Evidence showed he was coerced after his father's kidnapping but this did not justify
+  his actions. Key laws and precedents were cited to uphold the original verdict.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Yuen JA
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
@@ -26,9 +29,8 @@ involved_entities:
   reason: Judge in the Court of Appeal.
 - entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge Mackintosh
   reason: Judge who convicted the Applicant on 21 May 2009.
-- entity_name: HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
+- entity_name: Hartmann JA and Lunn J (now Lunn JA)
-  reason: Respondent in the case.
+  reason: Judges in another division of this court who dismissed the application for leave to appeal against
-- entity_name: MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA
+    sentence on 14 May 2010.
-  reason: Applicant and defendant in the case.
+- entity_name: Mr Ross
-- entity_name: Mr Ross of counsel
   reason: Counsel representing the Applicant in his appeal.

en_cases_hkca/2013_HKCA_567/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,54 +1,57 @@
 plaintiff: []
 defendant:
+- HKSAR
 - HO WAI CHING (何惠貞)
 jurisdiction_code: HKCA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: "The applicant sought leave to appeal against her conviction after trial by Deputy High Court\
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  \ Judge, "
+case_reason: >-
+  The applicant sought leave to appeal against her conviction after trial by Deputy High Court Judge Andrew
+  Chan on 17 January 2012 of 14 counts of fraud, contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance,
 case_object:
-- conviction for fraud
+- conviction
 - sentences of imprisonment
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Sentence of Kenny Leung (liability issue)
-  result: Allowed. The court determined that the sentence imposed on Kenny Leung was entirely appropriate.
+  result: Allowed. The court upheld the original sentence as entirely appropriate.
 - charge: Sentence of Hui Po Keung (liability issue)
   result: Disallowed. The court quashed 3 months of each of the sentences imposed in respect of Counts
     4, 6 to 9 and substituted a total sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment for Hui Po Keung.
 - charge: Sentence of the applicant (liability issue)
-  result: Allowed. The court allowed the application for leave to appeal against sentence and imposed
+  result: Allowed. The court upheld the original sentence as entirely appropriate.
-    a new sentence of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment on the applicant, quashing the previous total
-    sentence of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及何惠貞女士因涉嫌欺诈而被定罪并提出上诉。核心争议在于对四位证人的证据处理方式及其陈述的可信度。法院认为，尽管检方在交叉询问中使用了引导性问题和不当评论，但这些并未实质损害被告的辩护案情。然而，法官在讯问肯尼·梁时的干预被认为是不恰当的。此外，关于Cyberspace公司的文件记录是否在警方调查时可用的问题也进行了讨论。最终，法院允许何惠貞女士针对其刑罚提出上诉，并将她的总刑期从7年3个月减至7年3个月。同时，肯尼·梁和胡宝康的刑罚维持不变。
+  The case involved an appeal against a conviction for fraud. The Court of Appeal reviewed evidence from
+  witnesses, particularly those improperly questioned by prosecution counsel. While some questions were
+  leading and improper, the court found no significant damage to the defense. The original sentences were
+  upheld. Key issues included the manner of questioning witnesses and the appropriateness of judicial
+  interventions.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Lunn JA
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: Andrew Chan (as he was then)
   reason: Deputy High Court Judge who presided over the trial of the applicant and her co-accuseds.
 - entity_name: Mr Kenny Leung
-  reason: Co-accused with the applicant, mentioned in the context of their relationship.
+  reason: Co-accused with the applicant, mentioned in the context of their relationship to other individuals.
-- entity_name: Mr Hui Po Keung
+- entity_name: Hui Po Keung
-  reason: Co-accused with the applicant, mentioned in the context of their relationship.
+  reason: Co-accused with the applicant, mentioned in the context of their relationship to Mr Kenny Leung.
+- entity_name: Leung Chi Keung (Kenny)
+  reason: Co-accused with the applicant, mentioned in the context of their relationship to other individuals.
 - entity_name: Mr Joe Lai Yiu Cho
   reason: Former employee of Cyberspeed and a witness whose evidence was criticized for being improperly
-    adduced.
+    adduced by prosecution counsel.
 - entity_name: Mr Danny Ho Kwai Yuen
   reason: Brother of the applicant, former employee of Cyberspeed and a witness whose evidence was criticized
-    for being improperly adduced.
+    for being improperly adduced by prosecution counsel.
 - entity_name: Ms Ann Ng Mee Lin
   reason: Former employee of Cyberspeed and a witness whose evidence was criticized for being improperly
-    adduced.
+    adduced by prosecution counsel.
 - entity_name: Mr Marco Chan Yik Lung
   reason: Former employee of Cyberspeed and a witness whose evidence was criticized for being improperly
-    adduced.
+    adduced by prosecution counsel.
 - entity_name: Cyberspeed Technology Company Limited (Cyberspeed)
   reason: Company involved in the fraud allegations, mentioned as the entity on behalf of which applications
     were made to banks.
-- entity_name: Super Dragon Technology
-  reason: Company associated with Mr Danny Ho Kwai Yuen, a former employee and witness.
 - entity_name: Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited
-  reason: Bank that was allegedly defrauded as per the counts of fraud.
+  reason: Bank that was allegedly defrauded by the applicant and her co-accuseds.
-- entity_name: HKSAR
-  reason: Respondent in the case, representing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

en_cases_hkca/2020_HKCA_649/summary-fast.yml

@@ -4,11 +4,13 @@ defendant:
 - TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
 - THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
 jurisdiction_code: HKCA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Applicant, Akther Mosammat Fataema, seeks leave from the Court of Final Appeal to appeal against an驳
+  Applicant, Akther Mosammat Fataema, seeks leave from the Court of Final Appeal to appeal against an
+  order dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning her non-refoulemr
 case_object:
 - leave to appeal
 judgment_result:
@@ -16,7 +18,10 @@ judgment_result:
   result: Dismissed. The court found no question of great general or public importance and no basis under
     section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在上诉法庭的判决中，申请人Akther Mosammat Fataema针对非遣返申请拒绝决定提出上诉。法院驳回了她的留请上诉至终审法院的请求。核心争议在于她认为原判未充分考虑其政治恐惧和国家条件风险。法院审查后指出，申请人的论点已在先前判决中详细评估过，并未发现涉及重大公共或一般性问题，亦无其他理由支持终审法院审理此案。最终，法院依据香港高等法院上诉法庭《终审法院条例》第22(1)(b)条驳回了留请上诉的请求。
+  Akther Mosammat Fataema appealed against an order dismissing her application for leave to apply for
+  judicial review concerning her non-refoulement claim. The Court of Appeal, presided by Hon Yuen JA and
+  Lisa Wong J, found no question of great general or public importance and dismissed the application under
+  section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Yuen JA
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,25 +1,32 @@
-plaintiff: []
+plaintiff:
+- MO YUK PING
 defendant:
 - HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Applicant Mo Yuk Ping seeks leave to appeal against her conviction for conspiracy to defraud, cont拈摡
+  Applicant Mo Yuk Ping seeks leave to appeal from her conviction for conspiracy to defraud, challenging
+  the sufficiency of legal certainty regarding the elements of the offence.
 case_object:
 - leave to appeal
 judgment_result:
-- charge: Refusal to certify points 2 to 5 (liability issue)
+- charge: Leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice (liability
-  result: Disallowed. The Court of Appeal's reasons were that the context was plain and straightforward,
+    issue)
-    point 3 did not arise as the trial judge made relevant findings, point 4 was obvious and did not require
+  result: Dismissed. The Court of Appeal was right in refusing to certify this point, and there is no
-    certification, and point 5 merely went to a complaint about the appellate court's analysis.
+    basis for leave to appeal on the 'substantial and grave injustice' ground.
-- charge: Granting leave to appeal for the certified point (liability issue)
+- charge: Leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud (liability issue)
-  result: Allowed. The Court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the certified point
+  result: Allowed. Leave to appeal has been granted to the applicant to pursue the certified point, which
-    regarding the constitutional requirement of legal certainty in relation to the offence of conspiracy
+    is limited to the question of whether the elements of the offence of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently
-    to defraud.
+    precise to satisfy the constitutional requirement of legal certainty.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及莫玉萍女士对因其涉嫌共谋欺诈而被判有罪的上诉申请。原告为莫玉萍，被告为香港特别行政区。案件核心在于是否允许莫玉萍就其共谋欺诈罪的定罪提出上诉，并针对四个争议点请求法院认证或授予上诉许可。法院分析了证据评估及法律适用问题，认为第2至5项争议点缺乏实质意义，拒绝认证这些争议点。最终，法院仅同意认证并授予莫玉萍就关于共谋欺诈罪构成要件不明确的争议点提出上诉的许可，并允许其基于重大不公正理由对其他争议点提起上诉。
+  In MO YUK PING v. HKSAR, Mo Yuk Ping appealed her convictions for conspiracy to defraud and perverting
+  the course of public justice. The Court of Appeal certified only one point regarding the sufficiency
+  of legal certainty in the conspiracy to defraud charge but dismissed other points. The court found no
+  substantial and grave injustice warranting leave on un-certified points. Leave was granted to appeal
+  on the certified point, affirming that the elements of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Chief Justice Li
   reason: Served as Chief Justice in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/summary_minimax2.7_plan.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+plaintiff:
+- MO YUK PING
+defendant:
+- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  Applicant Mo Yuk Ping seeks leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal against her convictions for conspiracy
+  to defraud and conspiracy to pervert course of public justice.
+case_object:
+- conviction for conspiracy to defraud
+- conviction for conspiracy to pervert course of public justice
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Leave to appeal on certified point regarding constitutional adequacy of conspiracy to defraud
+    elements (liability issue)
+  result: Allowed. Court grants leave to appeal for pursuing the point certified by the Court of Appeal,
+    extends time and grants applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
+- charge: Leave to appeal on points 2-4 (certification requests regarding co-conspirator evidence issues)
+    (liability issue)
+  result: Dismissed. Court held that Court of Appeal was right in refusing to certify these points; context
+    was straightforward (point 2), point 3 did not arise on the evidence, and point 4 did not arise because
+    trial judge made the relevant findings.
+- charge: Leave to appeal on 'substantial and grave injustice' ground (liability issue)
+  result: Dismissed. Court found no basis for leave to appeal on this ground.
+- charge: Leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice (Charge
+    3) (liability issue)
+  result: Not granted. Applicant does not have leave to appeal against this conviction.
+- charge: Leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) limited to legal certainty
+    question (liability issue)
+  result: Granted. Applicant has leave to appeal against this conviction, limited to the question of whether
+    the elements of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy constitutional requirement
+    of legal certainty.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  Applicant Mo Yuk Ping applied for leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to defraud and
+  conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. Court allowed leave limited to the constitutional
+  question of legal certainty for the conspiracy to defraud conviction, holding the Court of Appeal correctly
+  certified this point. Leave was dismissed on points 2-4 concerning co-conspirator evidence, as context
+  was straightforward, evidence did not raise the issues, and trial judge made relevant findings. No basis
+  existed for substantial injustice ground, and no leave granted for the perverting justice conviction.
+  Appeal proceeds only on legal certainty question.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
+  reason: Presiding as Appeal Committee member in Court of Final Appeal, hearing application for leave
+    to appeal in FAMC No. 2 of 2007.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
+  reason: Presiding Permanent Judge who delivered the determination in this case, analyzing the Court
+    of Appeal's judgment and the five certification questions raised by the applicant.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
+  reason: Presiding as Appeal Committee member in Court of Final Appeal, participating in the determination
+    of this application for leave to appeal.
+- entity_name: MO YUK PING
+  reason: Applicant in this criminal miscellaneous proceedings, applying for leave to appeal against her
+    convictions for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
+- entity_name: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+  reason: Respondent in this criminal miscellaneous proceedings, the government's legal entity opposing
+    the applicant's appeal.

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/前后5000分析/summary_claude-sonnet-4.5.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+针对提供的案件原文 `case.json`，我对提取内容的准确度评价为：**极高（Excellent）**。
+
+提取内容完整且精确地反映了判决书的核心要素，无实质性错误。以下是详细分析：
+
+### 1. 基础信息准确性
+
+* **当事人 (Plaintiff/Defendant):** 完全准确。提取内容正确识别了上诉人（Applicant）为 **MO YUK PING**，被上诉人（Respondent）为 **HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION**。
+* **司法管辖 (Jurisdiction):** 完全准确。`HKCFA` 对应 **Court of Final Appeal of the HKSAR**。
+
+### 2. 案由与对象 (Case Reason & Object)
+
+* **准确性:** 极高。
+* **分析:** 提取内容准确指出申请人是针对 **CACC No. 26 of 2006** 的判决提出上诉许可申请，涉及 **串谋诈骗 (Conspiracy to defraud)** 和 **串谋妨碍司法公正 (Conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice)** 两项罪名。
+
+### 3. 判决结果 (Judgment Result)
+
+* **准确性:** 极高。
+* **核心细节点拨:** * **串谋妨碍司法公正罪 (Charge 3):** 提取内容正确指出该项申请被**驳回 (Dismissed)**，因为法院同意上诉法庭拒绝就相关法律观点（第2至5点）发出证明书，且不认为存在“重大及严重的不公平”。
+* **串谋诈骗罪 (Charge 2):** 提取内容精准捕捉到了“部分准许”的状态——法院准予了上诉许可，但**仅限于 (Limited to)** 已获证明书的法律争议点，即该罪行要件是否符合“法律确定性 (Legal certainty)”的宪法要求。
+
+
+
+### 4. 判决摘要 (Judgment Summary)
+
+* **准确性:** 极高。
+* **评价:** 中文摘要清晰地梳理了复杂的诉讼流程。它不仅涵盖了判决结论，还准确解释了法院为何拒绝第2至5点理由（认为这些点在案情下不成立或属明显原则），并特别提到了法院准予了“延长时间 (Extend time)”的申请。
+
+### 5. 关联实体 (Involved Entities)
+
+* **准确性:** 准确。
+* **分析:** * 正确识别了上诉委员会成员：**Li CJ**, **Bokhary PJ** (撰写判词者), **Chan PJ**。
+* 正确识别了申请人 **Mo Yuk Ping** 的身份及背景。
+
+
+
+### 总结评价
+
+这份提取内容表现出很强的专业法律文本理解能力。它没有混淆“已获上诉法庭证明的观点”与“终审法院最终准予上诉的范围”，并在处理多项控罪的不同处理结果时条理分明。**可以直接作为该案件的摘要或元数据使用。**

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/前后5000分析/summary_claude-sonnet-4.5.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+plaintiff:
+- MO YUK PING
+defendant:
+- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  Applicant Mo Yuk Ping seeks leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy
+  to pervert the course of public justice from CACC No. 26 of 2006.
+case_object:
+- leave to appeal
+- conviction for conspiracy to defraud
+- conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public
+    justice under Charge 3 (liability issue)
+  result: Dismissed. Court of Appeal was right in refusing to certify points 2 to 5, no basis for leave
+    to appeal on 'substantial and grave injustice' ground, applicant does not have leave to appeal against
+    this conviction.
+- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud under Charge 2
+    (liability issue)
+  result: Partially allowed. Time extended and leave to appeal granted, but limited to the certified point
+    on whether elements of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy constitutional requirement
+    of legal certainty. Court considered it appropriate to grant leave for pursuing this certified point.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  申请人莫玉萍就串谋诈骗罪及串谋妨碍司法公正罪定罪申请上诉许可。上诉法院已就串谋诈骗罪构成要件是否符合法律确定性的宪法要求发出证明书。终审法院审查证据采纳规则、法官指示必要性及上诉法院对原审法官裁断的解读等争议点。法院认为上诉法院正确拒绝就第2至5点发出证明书,该等争议在案情脉络下不成立或属明显法律原则,不符合「重大严重不公」标准。最终批准就已发证明书的法律确定性问题延长时间并准予上诉许可,但驳回就妨碍司法公正罪定罪的上诉许可申请。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
+  reason: Member of the Appeal Committee in this case, responsible for determining the application for
+    leave to appeal.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, member of the Appeal Committee, authored the determination.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
+  reason: Member of the Appeal Committee in this case, responsible for determining the application for
+    leave to appeal.
+- entity_name: Mo Yuk Ping
+  reason: Applicant in this criminal appeal case, convicted of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to
+    pervert the course of public justice.

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/前后5000分析/summary_gemini-3-flash-preview.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+针对提供的案件提取内容，基于 `case.json` 的原文进行准确度评价如下：
+
+### **总体评价：极高 (Highly Accurate)**
+
+提取内容非常精准地捕捉了判决书的核心要素，逻辑清晰，法律术语使用得当，完全符合原文。
+
+---
+
+### **分项评价**
+
+#### **1. 基础信息 (Plaintiff, Defendant, Jurisdiction)**
+
+* **评价：** **完全准确**。
+* **依据：** 原文明确列出原告（Applicant）为 **MO YUK PING**，被告（Respondent）为 **HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION**。审理法院为 **Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA)**。
+
+#### **2. 案件起因与标的 (Case Reason & Object)**
+
+* **评价：** **完全准确**。
+* **依据：**
+* **起因：** 提取内容正确指出申请人针对串谋诈骗（Charge 2）和串谋妨碍司法公正（Charge 3）的定罪申请上诉许可。
+* **标的：** 涵盖了刑事定罪（criminal conviction）以及核心法律争议——法律确定性的宪法权利（constitutional requirement of legal certainty）。
+
+
+
+#### **3. 判决结果 (Judgment Result)**
+
+* **评价：** **极高**。
+* **细节分析：** 提取内容清晰地将两个控罪的结果分开表述，这非常专业。
+* **Charge 2 (串谋诈骗)：** 正确指出法院批准了（Allowed）上诉许可，但**仅限于**已认证的“法律确定性”这一法律观点。
+* **Charge 3 (串谋妨碍司法公正)：** 正确指出该项申请被驳回（Dismissed），法院同意上诉法庭拒绝认证其他要点的决定，且认为不存在“实质及严重的不公平”。
+
+
+
+#### **4. 判决摘要 (Judgment Summary)**
+
+* **评价：** **准确且精炼**。
+* **依据：** 摘要总结了申请人的诉求、法院对法律确定性问题的重视，以及对其他证据性/事实性争点（Points 2-5）的拒绝。
+
+#### **5. 涉及实体 (Involved Entities)**
+
+* **评价：** **完全准确**。
+* **依据：**
+* 正确列出了三位法官：**Chief Justice Li**, **Mr Justice Bokhary PJ** (撰写判决书者), **Mr Justice Chan PJ**。
+* 正确识别了上诉法庭（Court of Appeal）作为下级法院的角色。
+
+
+
+---
+
+### **改进建议（微调）**
+
+虽然提取内容已经非常优秀，但有一点细节可以更完美：
+
+* **角色界定：** 在 `plaintiff` 字段中，虽然 Mo Yuk Ping 是原告性质，但在刑事上诉程序中，更精确的称谓是 **Applicant**（申请人）；同理，HKSAR 称为 **Respondent**（答辩人）。不过，目前的提取方式在通用法律框架下也是可以接受的。
+
+### **总结结论**
+
+该提取内容对 `case.json` 的解析**准确度为 100%**。它不仅抓住了案件的事实，还准确区分了不同控罪下截然不同的法律结果。

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/前后5000分析/summary_gemini-3-flash-preview.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+plaintiff:
+- MO YUK PING
+defendant:
+- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  Applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against her convictions for conspiracy
+  to defraud and perverting the course of justice (CACC 26/2006).
+case_object:
+- criminal conviction
+- constitutional right to legal certainty
+- liberty
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) (liability
+    issue)
+  result: Allowed. The Court granted leave to appeal limited to the certified point regarding whether
+    the elements of the offence of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy the constitutional
+    requirement of legal certainty.
+- charge: Application for leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public
+    justice (Charge 3) (liability issue)
+  result: Dismissed. The Court refused to certify the applicant's additional points (2 to 5) and found
+    no basis for leave to appeal on the 'substantial and grave injustice' ground, agreeing with the Court
+    of Appeal's reasons for refusal.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  Applicant Mo Yuk Ping sought leave to appeal convictions for conspiracy to defraud and perverting justice.
+  The core issue was whether the fraud charge met constitutional requirements for legal certainty. The
+  Court accepted the certified point on legal certainty as a matter of great importance. However, it rejected
+  other points, finding the lower court's evidence assessment and factual findings were sound. Leave to
+  appeal was granted only for the certified point on Charge 2.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mo Yuk Ping
+  reason: The Applicant in this case, seeking leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to defraud
+    and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.
+- entity_name: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+  reason: The Respondent in this case, representing the prosecution.
+- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
+  reason: Member of the Appeal Committee presiding over the application for leave to appeal.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
+  reason: Member of the Appeal Committee and the judge who delivered the determination in this case.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
+  reason: Member of the Appeal Committee presiding over the application for leave to appeal.
+- entity_name: Court of Appeal
+  reason: The lower court that certified one point of law but refused to certify others, whose judgment
+    is the subject of this leave application.

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/前后5000分析/summary_qwen2.5-7b.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+这份提取内容的准确度极高，但在部分法律细节和实体身份的描述上存在微小偏差。
+
+以下是针对各字段的详细评价：
+
+### 1. 基本信息与当事人 (Plaintiff, Defendant, Jurisdiction)
+
+* **准确度：优秀**
+* **评价**：完全吻合原文。提取内容正确识别了上诉人（Applicant/Plaintiff）为 **MO YUK PING**，答辩人（Respondent/Defendant）为 **HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (HKSAR)**。
+* **微调建议**：在刑事上诉案件中，MO YUK PING 的法律身份通常表述为 "Applicant"（申请人），而非民事诉讼中的 "Plaintiff"（原告）。
+
+### 2. 案由与标的 (Case Reason & Object)
+
+* **准确度：优秀**
+* **评价**：准确抓住了核心争议点。申请人确实是针对两项定罪申请上诉许可，其中最关键的法律争议点是“串谋诈骗罪的法律确定性”。
+
+### 3. 判决结果 (Judgment Result)
+
+* **准确度：极高**
+* **评价**：清晰地划分了两项控罪的不同处理结果：
+* **串谋妨碍司法公正罪 (Charge 3)**：被拒绝上诉许可。
+* **串谋诈骗罪 (Charge 2)**：仅就“法律确定性”这一法律问题准予上诉许可。
+
+
+* **注意点**：提取内容中提到的“liability issue”（法律责任问题）是准确的，因为这涉及到定罪的合法性基础。
+
+### 4. 判决摘要 (Judgment Summary)
+
+* **准确度：良好**
+* **评价**：中文摘要准确概括了案件背景和法院的最终决定。
+* **微修正**：摘要中提到“尽管原审法院未在关键问题上作出明确裁决”，这一表述略有偏差。原文第 2 点提到，上诉法庭拒绝认证部分要点的原因之一是认为“原审法官确实作出了相关裁断”（...the trial judge did make the findings concerned），这与申请人的主张相反。
+
+### 5. 关联实体 (Involved Entities)
+
+* **准确度：中等偏上**
+* **评价**：
+* **名单完整性**：正确列出了三位大法官以及案件双方当事人。
+* **职责描述偏差**：将三位大法官（Li, Bokhary, Chan）描述为“responsible for **fact-finding**”（负责事实发现）是不准确的。本案是**终审法院上诉委员会**（Appeal Committee）的程序，其职责是**法律审核与决定是否准予上诉许可**，而非初审中的“事实认定（Fact-finding）”。
+
+
+
+---
+
+### 总体评价：**92/100**
+
+**优点**：
+
+* 成功区分了不同控罪的许可结果。
+* 准确捕捉到了“法律确定性（legal certainty）”这一核心法律论点。
+
+**可改进处**：
+
+* 将法官职责从“事实认定”修正为“审理上诉许可申请”。
+* 在判决摘要中更精确地反映上诉法庭与申请人关于“原审法官是否作出裁断”的分歧点。

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/前后5000分析/summary_qwen2.5-7b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+plaintiff:
+- MO YUK PING
+defendant:
+- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  Applicant Mo Yuk Ping seeks leave to appeal from her conviction of conspiracy to defraud, challenging
+  the sufficiency of legal certainty regarding the elements of the offence.
+case_object:
+- leave to appeal
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Applicant's leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of public
+    justice (liability issue)
+  result: Denied. The Court of Final Appeal considered that there was no basis for leave to appeal on
+    this ground.
+- charge: Applicant's leave to appeal against conviction for conspiracy to defraud, limited to the question
+    of whether the elements of the offence are sufficiently precise (liability issue)
+  result: Granted. The Court of Final Appeal extended time and granted the applicant leave to appeal to
+    the Court of Final Appeal on this specific point.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  Mo Yuk Ping appealed her conviction for conspiracy to defraud, arguing that the elements of the offence
+  lacked legal certainty. The Court of Final Appeal considered evidence assessment and constitutional
+  requirements but denied leave to appeal on most grounds. However, they granted leave to appeal specifically
+  regarding the sufficiency of legal certainty in defining the elements of the offence.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: MO YUK PING
+  reason: Applicant in the case.
+- entity_name: HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+  reason: Respondent in the case.

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/前后5000分析/summary_qwen3-8b.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+案件原文：
+case.json
+
+对比以下案件的提取内容,给出准确度评价：
+plaintiff:
+- MO YUK PING
+defendant:
+- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: "Applicant seeks leave to appeal against her conviction for conspiracy to defraud, challenging\
+  \ the sufficiency of the offence's elements to meet the constitutional requirement of legal certainty,\
+  \ from "
+case_object:
+- legal certainty of conspiracy to defraud offence
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy to defraud charge sufficiency (liability issue)
+  result: Allowed. Court granted leave to appeal on the certified point regarding whether the elements
+    of the offence of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy the constitutional requirement
+    of legal certainty. Court held the elements were not sufficiently precise and required further clarification
+    to meet legal certainty standards.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  MO YUK PING challenged the sufficiency of Hong Kong's conspiracy to defraud offence elements for legal
+  certainty. The Court of Final Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the offence's elements insufficiently
+  precise, requiring clarification to meet constitutional standards. The court emphasized evidence assessment
+  and legal certainty principles, citing constitutional requirements. Judgment allowed the appeal on the
+  certified point, ordering further clarification of the offence's elements.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, served as member of Appeal Committee responsible for adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, served as member of Appeal Committee responsible for adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, served as member of Appeal Committee responsible for adjudication.
+- entity_name: HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+  reason: Respondent in this case, representing the government entity involved in the legal proceedings.
+
+
+
+
+这份提取内容的准确度评价为：**中等偏下 (Low to Moderate)**。
+
+虽然提取内容准确识别了案件主体、法院和基本法律争议，但在判决结果（judgment_result）**和**摘要（judgment_summary）部分存在严重的误导性偏差，误将“准予上诉许可”理解为“终审判定罪名违宪”。
+
+以下是详细对比评价：
+
+### 1. 准确部分 (High Accuracy)
+
+* **当事人 (Plaintiff/Defendant)**：准确。原告（申请人）为 **MO YUK PING**，被告（答辩人）为 **HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION**。
+* **管辖权 (Jurisdiction)**：准确。审理法院为香港特别行政区终审法院 (HKCFA)。
+* **相关实体 (Involved Entities)**：准确识别了三位法官及答辩方主体。
+
+### 2. 存在瑕疵的部分 (Minor Inaccuracies)
+
+* **案由 (Case Reason)**：基本准确，但文字在该处中断（"from " 后无内容）。
+* **案件目标 (Case Object)**：准确捕捉到了核心争议点，即串谋诈骗罪的“法律确定性”。
+
+### 3. 严重错误部分 (Significant Errors)
+
+* **判决结果 (Judgment Result)**：
+* **错误点**：提取内容声称法院判定该罪名元素“不够精确”并“要求进一步澄清”。
+* **事实**：这仅仅是一份**上诉委员会的决定 (Determination)**，其性质是**决定是否准予上诉许可**。法院在该阶段并未对罪名是否违宪下结论，只是认为这是一个具有“可争辩性”的法律点，因此决定**给予上诉许可**以便后续审理。
+
+
+* **判决摘要 (Judgment Summary)**：
+* **错误点**：摘要称“Judgment allowed the appeal”（判决上诉得直）。
+* **事实**：法院仅是准许了申请人就“串谋诈骗”这一项罪名进行上诉（grant leave to appeal），而**驳回**了关于“串谋妨碍司法公正”罪名的上诉许可申请，同时也驳回了基于“实质及严重不公”理由的上诉申请。
+
+
+
+---
+
+### 总结建议
+
+提取内容混淆了**程序性准许 (Leave to Appeal)**与**实体判决 (Final Judgment)**。
+
+> **更正建议：**
+> 应当明确此案件并非是对罪名违宪的定论，而是终审法院上诉委员会**同意受理**有关“串谋诈骗罪是否符合法律确定性”的法律争议。同时，申请人针对“串谋妨碍司法公正罪”的上诉申请已被明确拒绝。

en_cases_hkcfa/2007_HKCFA_6/前后5000分析/summary_qwen3-8b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+plaintiff:
+- MO YUK PING
+defendant:
+- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  Plaintiff, a security guard, claims personal injury damages from defendant for assault at the mall in
+  July 2023.
+case_object:
+- personal injury damages
+- medical expenses
+- distress damages
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy to defraud charge sufficiency (liability issue)
+  result: Allowed. Court granted leave to appeal on the certified point regarding whether the elements
+    of the offence of conspiracy to defraud are sufficiently precise to satisfy the constitutional requirement
+    of legal certainty. Court held the elements were not sufficiently precise and required further clarification.
+  reasons:
+  - The Court of Appeal certified the applicant's first point as raising a constitutional issue regarding
+    legal certainty
+  - The higher court found the elements of the offence were insufficiently defined
+  - The appeal was limited to this specific legal certainty issue
+judgment_summary: >-
+  MO YUK PING sued the HKSAR for personal injury damages from a 2023 mall assault. Core issues centered
+  on liability and compensation for medical expenses and distress. The Court of Final Appeal certified
+  that the conspiracy to defraud charge's elements lacked legal certainty, allowing appeal on this point.
+  Other claims were dismissed as non-justiciable. Judgment granted leave to appeal on the legal certainty
+  issue, rejecting other points as moot or lacking merit.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Chief Justice Li
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, served as member of Appeal Committee responsible for adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, served as member of Appeal Committee responsible for adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Chan PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, served as member of Appeal Committee responsible for adjudication.
+- entity_name: HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+  reason: Respondent in this case, representing the government entity involved in the legal proceedings.

en_cases_hkcfa/2008_HKCFA_13/summary-fast.yml

@@ -3,18 +3,21 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - TAI, TANG CHONG
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Kensland Realty Limited appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision dismissing its action for损害赔偿
+  Kensland Realty Limited appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision dismissing its action for damages
+  against its former solicitors, TTC, as time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance.
 case_object:
-- damages
+- action for damages for negligence
 judgment_result: []
-judgment_summary: "Kensland Realty Limited sued TAI, TANG CHONG for damages after Whale View failed to\
+judgment_summary: >-
-  \ complete a property purchase by the deadline, leading to Kensland forfeiting Whale View’s deposit.\
+  Kensland Realty Limited sued its former solicitors, TTC, for negligence in advising it regarding a property
-  \ The core issue was whether Kensland's claim was time-barred under Hong Kong's Limitation Ordinance.\
+  transaction. The Court found Kensland's action time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance as the cause
-  \ The court found, "
+  of action accrued more than six years ago. Key legal analysis focused on whether Kensland had 'knowledge
+  required for bringing an action' within that period, which was deemed not to be the case.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: KENSLAND REALTY LIMITED
   reason: Plaintiff in the case.

en_cases_hkcfa/2016_HKCFA_41/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,25 +1,25 @@
-plaintiff: []
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
 defendant:
 - LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH (陸健)
 - YU OI KEE (余藹琪)
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: "HKSAR seeks leave to appeal from CACC No. 283 of 2014 regarding the interpretation of 'agent'\
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  \ under "
+case_reason: >-
+  HKSAR seeks leave to appeal from CACC No. 283 of 2014 regarding the interpretation of 'agent' under
+  s.9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 and related statutory provisions.
 case_object:
-- the meaning of 'agent' in s.9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201
+- leave to appeal
-- construction of 'or other document' in s.9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201
+judgment_result: []
-- application of common law principles to statutory anti-corruption regime under the Prevention of Bribery
-  Ordinance, Cap. 201
-judgment_result:
-- charge: Leave application for all three applications (liability issue)
-  result: Allowed. Leave is given for the appeals on the specified questions.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) sought leave to appeal from CACC No.
+  The Court of Final Appeal granted leave to appeal from CACC No. 283 of 2014 regarding the interpretation
-  283 of 2014 regarding the interpretation of 'agent' under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap.
+  of 'agent' under s.9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 and related statutory provisions.
-  201. The core issues in dispute included: (1) defining 'agent' for s.9 purposes; (2) construing '
+  The core issues include defining an agent without legal or contractual obligations, construing 'or other
+  document,' and applying common law principles to statutory anti-corruption laws. The Court will hear
+  these appeals on November 23, 2016.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Chief Justice Ma
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkcfa/2023_HKCFA_30/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,12 +1,22 @@
-plaintiff: []
+plaintiff:
-defendant:
 - HKSAR
+defendant:
+- KWOK WING KIN (郭永健) (D1)
+- HO STANLEY WAI HONG (何偉航) (D2)
+- WONG HO MING RAPHAEL (黃浩銘) (D3)
+- TSANG KIN SHING (曾健成) (D4)
+- MAK TAK CHING (麥德正) (D5)
+- NG MAN YUEN AVERY (吳文遠) (D6)
+- LEE CHEUK YAN (李卓人) (D7)
+- LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄) (D8)
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  HKSAR seeks to refuse leave for Kwok Wing Kin and others to appeal from HCMA No. 187 of 2021, which,
+  HKSAR seeks to refuse leave for Kwok Wing Kin and others to appeal from HCMA No. 187 of 2021 regarding
+  the interpretation and application of the Regulation on Mandatory Quarantine Measures.
 case_object:
 - leave to appeal
 judgment_result:
@@ -14,8 +24,10 @@ judgment_result:
   result: Refused. The court found that there is no prospect of showing a point of law of great and general
     importance, as the regulation has expired and its provisions are no longer relevant or important.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在2020年5月1日，八名被告因违反《预防及控制疾病（禁止集会）条例》第6条，在未经警方许可的情况下组织和参与非法集会被控。该条例旨在防止、保护或延缓COVID-19病毒的传播。法院审理后裁定他们构成并参与了超过四人的非法集会，并判处每人监禁14天，缓刑18个月。被告提出上诉被驳回。HKSAR申请撤销对Kwok
+  The Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region refused HKSAR's application
-  Wing Kin等人的上诉许可。终审法院认为，《预防及控制疾病（禁止集会）条例》已失效且不再具有重要性，因此拒绝了HKSAR的申请，理由是没有显示任何重大而普遍的重要法律问题。
+  for leave to appeal from HCMA No. 187 of 2021, regarding the interpretation and application of the Regulation
+  on Mandatory Quarantine Measures. The court found no prospect of showing a point of law of great and
+  general importance as the regulation had expired and its provisions were no longer relevant or important.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
-plaintiff: []
-defendant:
-- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
-- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
-- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
-- LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
-jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
-case_location:
-- 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: >-
-  HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision in FACC No. 1 of 2025 regarding the prosecution
-case_object:
-- legal interpretation of transactional agreements
-- conspiracy to defraud
-judgment_result:
-- charge: Placement/sub-placement agreements were continuing connected transactions (liability issue)
-  result: Disallowed. The Court did not hear argument directed to whether the placement/sub-placement
-    agreements were continuing connected transactions and therefore expressed no view as to whether they
-    were.
-judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) appealed against a decision in FACC
-  No. 1 of 2025 regarding the prosecution of MAK KWONG YIU and others for conspiracy to defraud. The core
-  issue was whether the placement/sub-placement agreements were continuing connected transaction
-involved_entities:
-- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
-  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
-- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
-  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
-- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
-  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
-- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
-  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
-- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
-  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
-- entity_name: HKSAR
-  reason: Appellant in the case.
-- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
-  reason: Respondent in the case.
-- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
-  reason: Respondent in the case.
-- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
-  reason: Respondent in the case.
-- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
-  reason: Respondent in the case.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/summary_fast.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
+defendant:
+- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
+- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
+- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
+- LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision restoring the convictions of defendants in a conspiracy
+  charge related to concealing CISL’s role as placing agent for CFHL, challenging the Court's
+case_object:
+- convictions
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy charges (liability issue)
+  result: Allowed. The Court agreed that the defendants' scheme involved concealing CISL's role as the
+    actual placing agent, which was a connected transaction under the Listing Rules.
+- charge: Interposition of Gransing being a mere disguise (quantum issue)
+  result: Partially allowed. While the Court agreed that the interposition of Gransing was an arrangement
+    to conceal CISL's role, it did not find that this alone was sufficient to establish the conspiracy
+    charges.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  The case involves HKSAR appealing against convictions for conspiracy charges related to concealing CISL's
+  role in a placing agent transaction. The Court upheld that the scheme involved concealing CISL’s role,
+  but partially allowed the appeal by rejecting the sole reliance on interposition as sufficient evidence
+  of conspiracy. Key laws and precedents cited include Adams v The Queen and Mo Yuk Ping v HKSAR.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: HKSAR (Appellant)
+  reason: Government department involved as the appellant in the case.
+- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
+- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
+- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
+- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/summary_qwen2.5-7b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
+defendant:
+- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
+- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
+- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
+- LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision restoring the convictions of defendants in a conspiracy
+  charge related to concealing CISL’s role as placing agent for CFHL, challenging the Court's
+case_object:
+- convictions
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy charges (liability issue)
+  result: Allowed. The Court agreed that the defendants' scheme involved concealing CISL's role as the
+    actual placing agent, which was a connected transaction under the Listing Rules.
+- charge: Interposition of Gransing being a mere disguise (quantum issue)
+  result: Partially allowed. While the Court agreed that the interposition of Gransing was an arrangement
+    to conceal CISL's role, it did not find that this alone was sufficient to establish the conspiracy
+    charges.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  The case involves HKSAR appealing against convictions for conspiracy charges related to concealing CISL's
+  role in a placing agent transaction. The Court upheld that the scheme involved concealing CISL’s role,
+  but partially allowed the appeal by rejecting the sole reliance on interposition as sufficient evidence
+  of conspiracy. Key laws and precedents cited include Adams v The Queen and Mo Yuk Ping v HKSAR.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: HKSAR (Appellant)
+  reason: Government department involved as the appellant in the case.
+- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
+- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
+- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
+- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/summary_qwen3-8b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
+defendant:
+- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
+- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
+- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
+- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision (CACC No. 239 of 2021) to overturn convictions
+  of defendants for conspiracy to conceal CISL's role as placing agent in a connected transaction.
+case_object:
+- conviction
+- right to have conviction upheld
+- connected transaction determination
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy to conceal CISL's role as placing agent (liability issue)
+  result: Upheld. Appeal allowed, convictions restored. Court found concealment of CISL's agency constituted
+    unlawful connected transaction under Listing Rules, and directors' conflict of interest was central
+    to conspiracy charges.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's overturning of convictions for conspiracy to conceal CISL's
+  role in a connected transaction. Core issues: upholding convictions and determining connected transaction
+  status. Court rejected narrow 'sham' test from Snook v London, citing Adams v The Queen, finding concealment
+  of CISL's agency constituted unlawful connected transaction under Listing Rules. Convictions upheld,
+  appeal allowed, with directors' conflicts central to charges. Hong Kong Stock Ex
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Diplock LJ
+  reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated test for determining
+    sham transactions.
+- entity_name: Hong Kong Stock Exchange
+  reason: Institution involved in regulatory framework for connected transactions.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/前后5000/summary_claude-sonnet-4.5.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
+defendant:
+- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
+- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
+- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
+- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  HKSAR appeals against Court of Appeal's decision quashing convictions of four respondents for conspiracy
+  to defraud in relation to concealment of connected transactions under Listing Rules.
+case_object:
+- convictions for conspiracy to defraud
+- connected transaction disclosure obligations
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy to defraud charges against D1, D2, D3, and D4 (liability issue)
+  result: "Appeal allowed, convictions restored. Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in applying\
+    \ the Snook sham transaction test. The proper test is whether defendants dishonestly agreed to conceal\
+    \ CISL's role as actual placing agent by using Gransing as a front. Court accepted trial judge's finding\
+    \ that Gransing was merely a disguise to avoid connected transaction disclosure requirements under\
+    \ Listing Rules. The concealment had two objectionable aspects: (1) conflict of interest of directors\
+    \ involved, and (2) avoidance of scrutiny by independent non-executive directors and Stock Exchange.\
+    \ Evidence including WhatsApp messages between defendants clearly showed the purpose was to use Gransing\
+    \ as a buffer to avoid connected transaction consequences."
+- charge: Whether placement agreements constituted connected transactions requiring disclosure (quantum
+    issue)
+  result: Affirmed as connected transactions. Court held it was unnecessary to prove Gransing itself was
+    a connected person. The key issue was whether CISL's appointment as placing agent would constitute
+    a connected transaction - answer clearly affirmative as CISL was a connected person to CFHL through
+    Quincy Wong's indirect interest. The concealment of CISL's actual role violated Listing Rules requiring
+    disclosure of connected transactions and directors' material interests. Court rejected defendants'
+    argument that technical compliance with placement agreement documentation negated dishonesty.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  HKSAR appealed against acquittal of four defendants convicted of conspiracy to defraud by concealing
+  connected transactions under Listing Rules. The core dispute was whether using Gransing as intermediary
+  to hide CISL's role as placing agent constituted fraudulent concealment. The Court held the Court of
+  Appeal erred by applying the Snook sham test; concealment need not involve sham transactions. Evidence
+  including WhatsApp messages proved defendants dishonestly agreed to use Gransing to avoid disclosure
+  of CISL's connected person status and evade scrutiny by independent directors and Stock Exchange. Appeal
+  allowed, convictions restored.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, agreed with the judgment of Sir William Young NPJ and concurring
+    judgments.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, agreed with the judgment of Sir William Young NPJ and concurring
+    judgments.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, provided concurring judgment with additional reasons for allowing
+    the appeal.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, provided concurring judgment for allowing the appeal and restoring
+    convictions.
+- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered the main judgment allowing the appeal and restoring
+    the convictions of the defendants.
+- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU
+  reason: First respondent (D1) in this criminal appeal case, defendant in conspiracy charges.
+- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE
+  reason: Second respondent (D2) in this criminal appeal case, defendant in conspiracy charges.
+- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON
+  reason: Third respondent (D3) in this criminal appeal case, defendant in conspiracy charges.
+- entity_name: LEE YICK MING
+  reason: Fourth respondent (D4) in this criminal appeal case, defendant in conspiracy charges.
+- entity_name: Diplock LJ
+  reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated the test for
+    determining sham transactions, cited in paragraphs 10 and 13 of this judgment.
+- entity_name: CISL
+  reason: Company involved as the actual placing agent that was allegedly concealed in the connected transaction.
+- entity_name: CFHL
+  reason: Company involved in the placing agreements and connected transaction with CISL.
+- entity_name: Gransing
+  reason: Company allegedly used as a front or disguise to conceal CISL's role as placing agent.
+- entity_name: Quincy Wong
+  reason: Individual with indirect interest in CISL, relevant to establishing the connected person relationship.
+- entity_name: Stock Exchange
+  reason: Regulatory institution whose scrutiny of connected transactions was allegedly avoided by the
+    defendants.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/前后5000/summary_gemini-3-flash-preview.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
+defendant:
+- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
+- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
+- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
+- LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  Appellant HKSAR appeals against the acquittal of four respondents regarding conspiracy to defraud charges
+  involving the concealment of connected transactions from a listed company.
+case_object:
+- criminal conviction
+- disclosure of connected transactions
+- fiduciary duties of directors
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy to defraud (Charges 1 and 3) regarding the concealment of connected transactions
+    (liability issue)
+  result: Appeal allowed and convictions restored. The Court of Final Appeal held that the defendants
+    dishonestly agreed to use an intermediary (Gransing) as a front to conceal that a connected person
+    (CISL) was the actual placing agent. This concealment avoided scrutiny by independent directors and
+    the Stock Exchange under the Listing Rules.
+- charge: Determination of whether the interposition of an agent constitutes a 'sham' under the Snook
+    test (liability issue)
+  result: Appeal allowed. The Court ruled that the Court of Appeal erred in applying the Snook 'sham'
+    test; the prosecution only needed to prove that the arrangement was a device to conceal a conflict
+    of interest and a connected transaction, regardless of whether the underlying legal documents were
+    technically shams.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  The HKSAR appealed the acquittal of four respondents accused of conspiracy to defraud by concealing
+  connected transactions from a listed company. The core issue was whether using an intermediary to hide
+  a conflict of interest required proving the arrangement was a 'sham'. The Court of Final Appeal ruled
+  the lower court erred by applying the 'Snook' sham test; prosecution only needed to prove dishonest
+  concealment. The appeal was allowed and convictions were restored.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in the Court of Final Appeal for this case, responsible for adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in the Court of Final Appeal for this case, responsible for adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in the Court of Final Appeal for this case, provided a concurring judgment articulating
+    alternative legal routes for the appeal.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in the Court of Final Appeal for this case, provided a concurring judgment.
+- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in the Court of Final Appeal for this case, authored the primary judgment.
+- entity_name: HKSAR
+  reason: The Appellant in this criminal appeal representing the prosecution.
+- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
+  reason: The 1st Respondent (D1) in this appeal.
+- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
+  reason: The 2nd Respondent (D2) in this appeal.
+- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
+  reason: The 3rd Respondent (D3) in this appeal.
+- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明)
+  reason: The 4th Respondent (D4) in this appeal.
+- entity_name: CISL
+  reason: A company involved in the alleged conspiracy as the actual placing agent and identified as a
+    connected person to CFHL.
+- entity_name: Gransing
+  reason: A company alleged to have acted as a front or disguise for CISL in the placing agreements.
+- entity_name: CFHL
+  reason: The company involved in the placing agreements and connected transaction scrutiny.
+- entity_name: Quincy Wong
+  reason: Individual mentioned as having an indirect interest in CISL, forming the basis of the connected
+    transaction.
+- entity_name: Stock Exchange
+  reason: The regulatory body responsible for the regime governing connected transactions and scrutiny
+    of potential conflicts.
+- entity_name: Diplock LJ
+  reason: Served as a judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated the legal test
+    for 'sham' transactions cited in paragraph 10.
+- entity_name: Privy Council
+  reason: The judicial body that delivered the judgment in Adams v The Queen, cited in paragraph 13 regarding
+    concealment of director's breach of duties.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/前后5000/summary_minimax-m2.7-plan.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
+defendant:
+- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
+- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
+- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
+- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  HKSAR appeals Court of Appeal's overturning of convictions of four defendants on conspiracy charges
+  involving concealment of a connected person's role in share placements to avoid Listing Rules requirements.
+case_object:
+- criminal convictions
+- sentence
+- conspiracy charges
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy charges - dishonest concealment of CISL's role as placing agent with Gransing as
+    front (liability issue)
+  result: Allowed. Court held that the interposition of Gransing was a disguise to conceal CISL's agency
+    and avoid connected transaction scrutiny under Listing Rules. The unlaufulness lies in the concealment
+    of CISL's role creating conflict of interest and avoiding independent director/Stock Exchange scrutiny.
+    The Court of Appeal erred in requiring that placement/sub-placement agreements be sham transactions
+    under Snook test. D1-D4's convictions restored.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  HKSAR appealed against Court of Appeal's overturning of four defendants' convictions for conspiracy
+  to defraud through concealing CISL's role as placing agent by interposing Gransing as front. The CFA
+  held the Court of Appeal erred in requiring sham transactions under Snook test; concealment of connected
+  transactions to avoid Listing Rules scrutiny constitutes fraud without the agreements being shams. Appeal
+  allowed, D1-D4's convictions restored.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge (Permanent Justice) in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered judgment concurring
+    with Sir William Young NPJ.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge (Permanent Justice) in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered judgment concurring
+    with Sir William Young NPJ.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge (Permanent Justice) in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered concurring
+    judgment providing alternative analysis for allowing the appeal and restoring convictions.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
+  reason: Non-Permanent Justice in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered judgment with analysis on
+    concealment of connected transactions.
+- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
+  reason: Non-Permanent Justice in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered lead judgment allowing the
+    appeal and restoring convictions of defendants.
+- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
+  reason: First defendant (D1), respondent in this criminal appeal, convicted and subject to restored
+    convictions.
+- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
+  reason: Second defendant (D2), respondent in this criminal appeal, convicted and subject to restored
+    convictions.
+- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
+  reason: Third defendant (D3), respondent in this criminal appeal, convicted and subject to restored
+    convictions.
+- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明)
+  reason: Fourth defendant (D4), respondent in this criminal appeal, convicted and subject to restored
+    convictions.
+- entity_name: Lord Diplock (Diplock LJ)
+  reason: Lord Justice of Appeal in England, set out the test for sham transactions in Snook v London
+    and West Riding Investments Ltd, cited in paragraph 10 of this judgment.
+- entity_name: CISL
+  reason: Company acting as actual placing agent, identified as connected person to CFHL, whose agency
+    was concealed by defendants.
+- entity_name: CFHL
+  reason: Company involved in the placing agreements, with CISL as a connected person under the Listing
+    Rules.
+- entity_name: Gransing
+  reason: Company used as front or disguise for CISL's placing agent role, interposed between CFHL and
+    CISL in the transaction structure.
+- entity_name: Hong Kong Stock Exchange
+  reason: Regulatory body governing connected transaction regime, responsible for scrutiny of potential
+    conflicts of interest under Listing Rules.
+- entity_name: Quincy Wong
+  reason: Individual with indirect interest in CISL, creating the connected transaction relationship with
+    CFHL that required concealment.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/前后5000/summary_minimax-m2.7.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
+defendant:
+- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
+- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
+- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
+- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  HKSAR appeals to restore convictions of four respondents for conspiracy charges involving dishonest
+  concealment of CISL's role as placing agent to circumvent connected transaction requirements.
+case_object:
+- criminal convictions
+- conspiracy charges
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy to defraud charges (D1-D4) - concealment of CISL's role as actual placing agent (liability
+    issue)
+  result: Allowed. Court of Final Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions of all four defendants.
+    The Court held that the interposition of Gransing as a front was a disguise to conceal CISL's role
+    as the actual placing agent, which constituted a connected transaction under the Listing Rules. The
+    prosecution does not need to prove that Gransing was itself a connected person; the concealment of
+    CISL's agency was sufficient to establish the conspiracy. The Court of Appeal erred in requiring that
+    the placing/sub-placing agreements be sham transactions under the Snook test.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  HKSAR appealed to restore convictions of four respondents (MAK, CHAN, WONG, LEE) for conspiracy to defraud
+  by using Gransing as front to conceal CISL's role as actual placing agent, circumventing connected transaction
+  requirements. The Court of Final Appeal held that concealment alone, without requiring sham transactions
+  under the Snook test, was sufficient to establish the conspiracy. Following Adams v The Queen principles,
+  the Court found the composite arrangement deliberately hidden from independent non-executive directors
+  and the Stock Exchange. Appeal allowed; all four convictions restored.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+  reason: Presiding Judge of Final Appeal, presided over the case and delivered judgment agreeing with
+    Sir William Young NPJ.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
+  reason: Presiding Judge of Final Appeal, presided over the case and delivered judgment agreeing with
+    Sir William Young NPJ.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+  reason: Presiding Judge of Final Appeal, delivered concurring judgment providing additional reasons
+    for allowing the appeal and restoring convictions.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
+  reason: Non-Permanent Judge of Final Appeal, delivered judgment allowing the appeal and restoring convictions,
+    cited by other judges.
+- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
+  reason: Non-Permanent Judge of Final Appeal, delivered lead judgment allowing the appeal and restoring
+    convictions, cited by other judges.
+- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
+  reason: First respondent (D1), defendant in the criminal proceedings involving conspiracy charges related
+    to concealment of connected transactions.
+- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
+  reason: Second respondent (D2), defendant in the criminal proceedings.
+- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
+  reason: Third respondent (D3), defendant in the criminal proceedings.
+- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明)
+  reason: Fourth respondent (D4), defendant in the criminal proceedings.
+- entity_name: HKSAR
+  reason: Appellant in the case, represented the prosecution in the criminal appeal.
+- entity_name: Diplock LJ
+  reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated the test for
+    sham transactions, cited in paragraph 10 of this judgment.
+- entity_name: CISL
+  reason: Connected person to CFHL, actual placing agent whose role was concealed by the defendants through
+    the use of Gransing as a front.
+- entity_name: CFHL
+  reason: Company involved in the connected transaction, appointed Gransing as placing agent while CISL
+    was the actual agent.
+- entity_name: Gransing
+  reason: Company used as a front or disguise to conceal CISL's role as actual placing agent.
+- entity_name: Quincy Wong
+  reason: Individual with indirect interest in CISL, whose connection to CISL formed part of the connected
+    transaction that needed to be concealed.
+- entity_name: Court of Appeal
+  reason: Lower court whose decision was appealed, fell into error by requiring sham transaction analysis
+    under Snook test.
+- entity_name: Stock Exchange
+  reason: Regulatory body that would scrutinize potential conflicts of interest under the connected transactions
+    regime.
+- entity_name: Independent non-executive directors
+  reason: Corporate governance body whose scrutiny was to be avoided through the concealment of connected
+    transactions.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/前后5000/summary_qwen2.5-7b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+plaintiff: []
+defendant:
+- HKSAR
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision restoring convictions for conspiracy charges related
+  to concealing CISL's role as placing agent.
+case_object:
+- convictions
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy charges (liability issue)
+  result: Allowed. The Court agreed that the defendants' scheme involved concealing CISL's role as the
+    actual placing agent, which was a connected transaction under the Listing Rules.
+- charge: Interposition of Gransing being a mere disguise (quantum issue)
+  result: Partially allowed. While the Court agreed that the interposition of Gransing was an arrangement
+    to conceal CISL's role, it did not find that this alone was sufficient to establish the conspiracy
+    charges.
+judgment_summary: >-
+  The Court of Final Appeal upheld HKSAR's appeal, affirming convictions for conspiracy charges related
+  to concealing CISL’s role as placing agent. The court rejected the 'sham' limitation in Snook v London
+  and West Riding Investments Ltd, citing Adams v The Queen. Evidence of WhatsApp messages and public
+  announcements was assessed, supporting the defendants' scheme. The final judgment allowed HKSAR's appeal
+  on liability but partially allowed on quantum.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: HKSAR (Appellant)
+  reason: Government department involved as the appellant in the case.
+- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
+- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
+- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.
+- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
+  reason: Respondent in the case.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/前后5000/summary_qwen3-8b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
+defendant:
+- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
+- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
+- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
+- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
+case_reason: >-
+  HKSAR appeals against D1-D4's convictions for conspiracy to conceal CISL's role as placing agent and
+  avoid conflict scrutiny
+case_object:
+- concealment of connected transaction
+- avoidance of conflict of interest scrutiny
+judgment_result:
+- charge: Conspiracy to conceal CISL's role as placing agent (liability issue)
+  result: Upheld. Appeal allowed, convictions restored. Court found concealment of CISL's agency constituted
+    unlawful connected transaction under Listing Rules, and directors' conflict of interest was central
+    to conspiracy charges.
+  reasons:
+  - CISL's connection to CFHL was established as connected person
+  - Concealment of CISL's role was unlawful regardless of Gransing's status
+  - Directors' conflict of interest and avoidance of scrutiny by independent directors were key elements
+    of conspiracy
+judgment_summary: >-
+  HKSAR appealed D1-D4's convictions for conspiring to conceal CISL's role as placing agent to avoid conflict
+  scrutiny. Court upheld convictions, finding concealment of CISL's agency constituted unlawful connected
+  transactions under Listing Rules. Rejected narrow 'sham' definition from Snook, citing Adams v The Queen
+  and Mo Yuk Ping, emphasizing dishonesty and directors' duty breaches. Appeal allowed, convictions restored.
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
+  reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Diplock LJ
+  reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated test for determining
+    sham transactions.
+- entity_name: Hong Kong Stock Exchange
+  reason: Institution involved in regulatory framework for connected transactions.

en_cases_hkcfa/2025_HKCFA_20/前后5000/模型输出对比分析.md

@@ -0,0 +1,521 @@
+评分结果总结：
+排名	模型	总分	准确度	完整度
+🥇	Claude Sonnet 4.5	9.5/10	4.8/5	4.7/5
+🥈	Gemini 3 Flash Preview	9.0/10	4.5/5	4.5/5
+🥉	Minimax M2.7	8.5/10	4.3/5	4.2/5
+4	Qwen 3-8B	7.3/10	3.8/5	3.5/5
+5	Qwen 2.5-7B	4.5/10	2.0/5	2.5/5
+
+
+# 模型输出对比分析报告
+
+## 案件基本信息（基准）
+
+根据 `case.json` 原文，本案核心信息：
+
+- **案号**: FACC1/2025, [2025] HKCFA 20
+- **日期**: 2025年11月5日
+- **法院**: 香港终审法院 (HKCFA)
+- **案件性质**: 刑事上诉案件
+- **当事人**: 
+  - 上诉人: HKSAR
+  - 被告人(被上诉人): MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀/D1), CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒/D2), WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安/D3), LEE YICK MING (李易明/D4)
+- **案由**: 串谋诈骗罪，涉及隐瞒关连交易
+- **核心事实**: 
+  - CFHL发行债券，D1等人通过Gransing作为表面配售代理，实际由CISL（关连人士）配售
+  - 隐瞒CISL的实际角色以规避上市规则关于关连交易的披露要求
+  - CISL因Quincy Wong的间接权益而成为CFHL的关连人士
+- **判决结果**: 上诉得直，恢复原审定罪
+- **法律要点**:
+  1. 上诉法院错误适用Snook案的"虚假交易"测试
+  2. 隐瞒本身即构成欺诈，无需证明协议为虚假交易
+  3. 引用Adams v The Queen案例，董事违反受信责任的不诚实隐瞒可构成串谋诈骗
+  4. 关连交易的认定应看整体安排，而非仅看单一步骤
+- **主审法官**: Ribeiro PJ, Fok PJ, Lam PJ, Stock NPJ, Sir William Young NPJ
+
+---
+
+## 模型评分对比表
+
+| 模型 | 准确度 | 完整度 | 总分 | 主要优点 | 主要缺陷 |
+|------|--------|--------|------|----------|----------|
+| **Claude Sonnet 4.5** | 9.5 | 9.5 | **9.5** | 信息全面准确，法律分析深入 | 无明显缺陷 |
+| **Gemini 3 Flash Preview** | 9.0 | 9.0 | **9.0** | 结构清晰，关键点完整 | 部分细节略简化 |
+| **MiniMax M2.7 Plan** | 8.5 | 8.0 | **8.3** | 核心信息准确 | 完整度稍欠，部分实体缺失 |
+| **MiniMax M2.7** | 8.5 | 8.5 | **8.5** | 信息较全面 | 实体列表略显冗余 |
+| **Qwen 2.5-7B** | 4.0 | 3.5 | **3.8** | - | 原被告颠倒，信息严重缺失 |
+| **Qwen 3-8B** | 7.5 | 7.0 | **7.3** | 基本框架正确 | 细节不足，法律分析浅显 |
+
+---
+
+## 详细评分分析
+
+### 1. Claude Sonnet 4.5 - 9.5/10
+
+**准确度: 9.5/10**
+- ✅ 当事人信息完全准确
+- ✅ 案由描述精确："concealment of connected transactions under Listing Rules"
+- ✅ 判决结果准确："Appeal allowed, convictions restored"
+- ✅ 法律分析深入：正确指出上诉法院错误适用Snook测试
+- ✅ 关键证据提及：WhatsApp消息
+- ✅ 法律要点完整：conflict of interest + avoidance of scrutiny两个层面
+
+**完整度: 9.5/10**
+- ✅ 涉案实体全面：CISL, CFHL, Gransing, Quincy Wong, Stock Exchange
+- ✅ 法官信息完整：5位法官全部列出
+- ✅ 引用案例准确：Snook案、Adams案
+- ✅ 判决理由详细：包含两项指控的具体分析
+- ✅ 金额信息准确：HK$50 million佣金
+
+**主要优点**:
+- 对"composite transaction"概念的理解准确
+- 正确区分Charge 1和Charge 3的不同法律基础
+- 对Quincy Wong间接权益导致关连人士身份的说明清晰
+
+**微小不足**:
+- 可补充Capital Investment Entrant Scheme背景（原文有提及）
+
+---
+
+### 2. Gemini 3 Flash Preview - 9.0/10
+
+**准确度: 9.0/10**
+- ✅ 基本信息准确无误
+- ✅ 案由表述清晰："concealment of connected transactions from a listed company"
+- ✅ 判决结果正确
+- ✅ 法律分析到位：正确指出Snook测试的错误适用
+- ✅ 核心争议点准确："whether using an intermediary to hide a conflict of interest required proving the arrangement was a 'sham'"
+
+**完整度: 9.0/10**
+- ✅ 实体信息完整
+- ✅ 法官列表完整
+- ✅ 引用案例准确：Snook案、Adams案
+- ✅ 判决理由结构清晰
+- ⚠️ 判决结果部分略显简化，未详细区分两项指控
+
+**主要优点**:
+- judgment_summary简洁有力，抓住核心
+- 对"device to conceal"的表述准确
+- Privy Council作为实体单独列出，体现对法律体系的理解
+
+**微小不足**:
+- 可补充更多关于composite transaction的分析
+- 金额信息未在judgment_result中体现
+
+---
+
+### 3. MiniMax M2.7 Plan - 8.3/10
+
+**准确度: 8.5/10**
+- ✅ 基本信息准确
+- ✅ 判决结果正确："Appeal allowed; all four convictions restored"
+- ✅ 核心法律问题准确识别
+- ⚠️ case_reason表述略显简化
+- ⚠️ judgment_result只有一项，未区分Charge 1和Charge 3
+
+**完整度: 8.0/10**
+- ✅ 主要实体完整
+- ✅ 法官信息完整
+- ⚠️ 缺少具体金额信息
+- ⚠️ 引用案例较少（仅Snook案）
+- ⚠️ 判决理由相对简略
+
+**主要优点**:
+- 对"disguise"概念的理解准确
+- 正确指出"unlawfulness lies in the concealment"
+
+**主要不足**:
+- 完整度相对较低，细节信息不足
+- 未提及Adams案等重要引用
+- 缺少证据细节（如WhatsApp消息）
+
+---
+
+### 4. MiniMax M2.7 - 8.5/10
+
+**准确度: 8.5/10**
+- ✅ 基本信息准确
+- ✅ 判决结果正确
+- ✅ 法律分析较为完整
+- ✅ 正确引用Adams v The Queen案例
+
+**完整度: 8.5/10**
+- ✅ 实体信息较全面
+- ✅ 法官信息完整
+- ✅ 引用案例较完整：Snook案、Adams案
+- ⚠️ involved_entities列表略显冗余（Court of Appeal, Independent non-executive directors作为实体列出）
+- ⚠️ 判决结果只有一项，未详细区分
+
+**主要优点**:
+- judgment_summary较为详细
+- 对"composite arrangement"的理解准确
+- 提及Adams v The Queen原则
+
+**主要不足**:
+- 实体分类不够精准（将机构和角色混为实体）
+- 缺少具体金额信息
+- 判决理由可更详细
+
+---
+
+### 5. Qwen 2.5-7B - 3.8/10 ⚠️
+
+**准确度: 4.0/10**
+- ❌ **严重错误**: plaintiff为空，defendant为HKSAR（原被告颠倒！）
+- ❌ case_reason表述不清："HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision restoring convictions"（逻辑混乱）
+- ⚠️ judgment_result分为两项但内容不准确
+- ⚠️ "Partially allowed"表述错误（实际为完全允许上诉）
+
+**完整度: 3.5/10**
+- ❌ 缺少关键实体：CISL, CFHL, Gransing等核心公司
+- ❌ involved_entities仅列出法官和当事人，缺少案件相关实体
+- ❌ 缺少引用案例
+- ❌ 缺少具体金额、日期等细节
+
+**主要问题**:
+- **致命错误**: 原被告身份完全颠倒
+- 信息提取严重不完整
+- 法律分析浅显且不准确
+- 判决结果理解错误
+
+**唯一优点**:
+- 法官列表完整
+
+---
+
+### 6. Qwen 3-8B - 7.3/10
+
+**准确度: 7.5/10**
+- ✅ 基本信息准确
+- ✅ 当事人信息正确
+- ✅ 判决结果正确："Appeal allowed, convictions restored"
+- ⚠️ case_reason过于简化
+- ⚠️ judgment_result只有一项，且reasons部分为列表形式（格式不统一）
+
+**完整度: 7.0/10**
+- ✅ 主要实体基本完整
+- ⚠️ 缺少Gransing, CISL, CFHL等关键公司实体
+- ⚠️ 仅列出Diplock LJ和Stock Exchange两个实体
+- ⚠️ 缺少引用案例的详细信息
+- ⚠️ 缺少具体金额、证据等细节
+
+**主要优点**:
+- 核心法律问题识别准确
+- judgment_summary简洁清晰
+- 正确提及Snook案和Adams案
+
+**主要不足**:
+- 完整度明显不足
+- 实体信息严重缺失
+- 判决理由过于简略
+- 缺少重要细节信息
+
+---
+
+## 关键维度对比
+
+### 1. 当事人信息准确性
+- ✅ **完全准确**: Claude, Gemini, MiniMax M2.7 Plan, MiniMax M2.7, Qwen 3-8B
+- ❌ **严重错误**: Qwen 2.5-7B（原被告颠倒）
+
+### 2. 法律分析深度
+1. **Claude Sonnet 4.5** (最深入): 区分两项指控，分析composite transaction
+2. **Gemini 3 Flash Preview**: 清晰阐述Snook测试错误
+3. **MiniMax M2.7**: 引用Adams案
+4. **MiniMax M2.7 Plan**: 基本法律框架
+5. **Qwen 3-8B**: 浅显但基本正确
+6. **Qwen 2.5-7B**: 混乱且不准确
+
+### 3. 实体信息完整度
+1. **Claude Sonnet 4.5** (10个实体): 最全面
+2. **Gemini 3 Flash Preview** (12个实体): 包含Privy Council
+3. **MiniMax M2.7** (13个实体): 略显冗余
+4. **MiniMax M2.7 Plan** (11个实体): 较完整
+5. **Qwen 3-8B** (7个实体): 缺失关键公司
+6. **Qwen 2.5-7B** (5个实体): 严重缺失
+
+### 4. 判决结果准确性
+- ✅ **完全准确**: Claude, Gemini, MiniMax M2.7 Plan, MiniMax M2.7, Qwen 3-8B
+- ❌ **部分错误**: Qwen 2.5-7B（"Partially allowed"错误）
+
+### 5. 引用案例完整度
+1. **Claude, Gemini**: Snook案 + Adams案（完整）
+2. **MiniMax M2.7**: Snook案 + Adams案
+3. **MiniMax M2.7 Plan**: 仅Snook案
+4. **Qwen 3-8B**: 提及但不详细
+5. **Qwen 2.5-7B**: 缺失
+
+---
+
+## 总结与建议
+
+### 模型表现排名
+1. **Claude Sonnet 4.5** (9.5分) - 最佳选择
+2. **Gemini 3 Flash Preview** (9.0分) - 优秀
+3. **MiniMax M2.7** (8.5分) - 良好
+4. **MiniMax M2.7 Plan** (8.3分) - 良好
+5. **Qwen 3-8B** (7.3分) - 及格
+6. **Qwen 2.5-7B** (3.8分) - 不合格
+
+### 关键发现
+1. **Claude和Gemini**在法律文本信息提取任务中表现优异，准确度和完整度均在9分以上
+2. **MiniMax系列**表现中等偏上，基本信息准确但细节完整度有待提高
+3. **Qwen 2.5-7B**存在严重错误，不适合用于法律文本信息提取
+4. **Qwen 3-8B**相比2.5-7B有明显改进，但仍需提升完整度
+
+### 使用建议
+- **高精度需求**: 使用Claude Sonnet 4.5或Gemini 3 Flash Preview
+- **平衡性能与成本**: 可考虑MiniMax M2.7
+- **避免使用**: Qwen 2.5-7B在法律文本提取任务中不可靠 - HKCFA 2025/20
+
+## 案件基本信息
+- **案件编号**：FACC1/2025
+- **中立引证**：[2025] HKCFA 20
+- **案件名称**：HKSAR V. MAK KWONG YIU, CHAN LAI YEE, WONG SHUK ON, LEE YICK MING
+- **判决日期**：2025年11月5日
+- **审理日期**：2025年9月3-4日
+- **法院**：香港特别行政区终审法院
+
+---
+
+## 评分标准（10.0分制）
+- **准确度（5分）**：信息是否正确无误，无事实错误
+- **完整度（5分）**：是否涵盖关键信息要素（原被告、案由、判决结果、涉案实体、法律要点）
+
+---
+
+## 详细评分对比
+
+### 1. Claude Sonnet 4.5
+**准确度：4.8/5.0**  
+**完整度：4.7/5.0**  
+**总分：9.5/10.0** 🥇
+
+#### 优点：
+- ✅ 原被告信息完整准确（包括中英文姓名）
+- ✅ 案由描述精确：明确指出是HKSAR上诉推翻上诉法院撤销定罪的决定
+- ✅ 判决结果详细：清晰区分了两项指控（Charge 1和Charge 3），准确说明上诉获准、定罪恢复
+- ✅ 法律要点完整：准确提及Snook案的"sham test"错误适用、Adams v The Queen案例、连接交易规则
+- ✅ 核心事实准确：CISL作为实际配售代理、Gransing作为掩护、Quincy Wong的间接利益
+- ✅ 涉案实体全面：包括5位法官、4名被告、关键公司（CISL、CFHL、Gransing）、监管机构
+- ✅ WhatsApp消息证据被明确提及
+- ✅ 两个应受谴责的方面被准确概括：利益冲突和规避审查
+
+#### 不足：
+- ⚠️ 判决摘要略显冗长（-0.2分）
+- ⚠️ 部分法律术语可以更精炼（-0.1分）
+
+---
+
+### 2. Gemini 3 Flash Preview
+**准确度：4.5/5.0**  
+**完整度：4.5/5.0**  
+**总分：9.0/10.0** 🥈
+
+#### 优点：
+- ✅ 原被告信息完整准确（包括中英文姓名和编号D1-D4）
+- ✅ 案由描述准确：明确是HKSAR上诉推翻无罪判决
+- ✅ 判决结果清晰：分两项指控说明，上诉获准、定罪恢复
+- ✅ 法律要点准确：Snook "sham test"的错误适用、Adams v The Queen案例
+- ✅ 核心概念准确：连接交易、董事受信责任、利益冲突
+- ✅ 涉案实体全面：5位法官、4名被告、关键公司、监管机构
+- ✅ 提及Privy Council（枢密院司法委员会）
+
+#### 不足：
+- ⚠️ 案由中使用"acquittal"不够精确，应为"quashing convictions"（-0.2分）
+- ⚠️ 判决结果中"Determination of whether..."表述略显学术化（-0.1分）
+- ⚠️ 未明确提及WhatsApp消息这一关键证据（-0.2分）
+
+---
+
+### 3. Minimax M2.7
+**准确度：4.3/5.0**  
+**完整度：4.2/5.0**  
+**总分：8.5/10.0** 🥉
+
+#### 优点：
+- ✅ 原被告信息完整准确（包括中英文姓名）
+- ✅ 案由描述准确：恢复四名被告的定罪
+- ✅ 判决结果明确：上诉获准、所有四名被告定罪恢复
+- ✅ 法律要点准确：Snook test错误、Adams v The Queen案例
+- ✅ 核心事实准确：CISL作为实际配售代理、Gransing作为掩护
+- ✅ 涉案实体较全面：5位法官、4名被告、关键公司
+
+#### 不足：
+- ⚠️ 判决结果只列出一项综合指控，未区分Charge 1和Charge 3（-0.4分）
+- ⚠️ 未提及WhatsApp消息证据（-0.2分）
+- ⚠️ 案由描述相对简略，缺少"规避连接交易要求"的具体说明（-0.1分）
+- ⚠️ involved_entities中包含"Court of Appeal"和"Independent non-executive directors"作为实体，这些不是传统意义上的涉案实体（-0.3分）
+
+---
+
+### 4. Qwen 3-8B
+**准确度：3.8/5.0**  
+**完整度：3.5/5.0**  
+**总分：7.3/10.0**
+
+#### 优点：
+- ✅ 原被告信息完整准确（包括中英文姓名）
+- ✅ 判决结果明确：上诉获准、定罪恢复
+- ✅ 核心法律要点准确：连接交易、利益冲突、董事责任
+- ✅ 提及Snook案和Adams v The Queen案、Mo Yuk Ping案
+- ✅ 法官信息完整
+
+#### 不足：
+- ⚠️ 判决结果只列出一项指控，未区分Charge 1和Charge 3（-0.4分）
+- ⚠️ 案由描述较简略："avoid conflict scrutiny"表述不够精确（-0.3分）
+- ⚠️ 涉案实体信息严重不完整：缺少关键被告个人信息、CISL、CFHL、Gransing等公司（-0.8分）
+- ⚠️ 只提及"Hong Kong Stock Exchange"，未列出其他关键实体（-0.3分）
+- ⚠️ 未提及WhatsApp消息证据（-0.2分）
+- ⚠️ judgment_result中的reasons字段使用不当（-0.2分）
+
+---
+
+### 5. Qwen 2.5-7B
+**准确度：2.0/5.0**  
+**完整度：2.5/5.0**  
+**总分：4.5/10.0**
+
+#### 严重错误：
+- ❌ **原被告颠倒**：将HKSAR列为defendant（被告），这是根本性错误（-2.0分）
+- ❌ plaintiff字段为空数组（-0.5分）
+- ❌ 判决结果描述混乱："Partially allowed"（部分获准）与实际判决不符（-0.5分）
+- ❌ "quantum issue"（数额问题）的使用不当，本案不涉及赔偿数额争议（-0.3分）
+
+#### 优点：
+- ✅ 法官信息完整
+- ✅ 提及Snook案和Adams v The Queen案
+- ✅ 提及WhatsApp消息证据
+
+#### 不足：
+- ⚠️ 案由描述不清晰（-0.3分）
+- ⚠️ 涉案实体信息极度简化，缺少关键公司和个人（-0.9分）
+- ⚠️ 判决摘要逻辑混乱（-0.5分）
+
+---
+
+## 综合排名
+
+| 排名 | 模型 | 总分 | 准确度 | 完整度 | 主要优势 | 主要不足 |
+|------|------|------|--------|--------|----------|----------|
+| 🥇 1 | **Claude Sonnet 4.5** | 9.5/10 | 4.8/5 | 4.7/5 | 信息最全面准确，法律要点清晰，涉案实体完整 | 判决摘要略显冗长 |
+| 🥈 2 | **Gemini 3 Flash Preview** | 9.0/10 | 4.5/5 | 4.5/5 | 信息准确完整，结构清晰，法律分析到位 | 未提及WhatsApp证据 |
+| 🥉 3 | **Minimax M2.7** | 8.5/10 | 4.3/5 | 4.2/5 | 核心信息准确，判决结果明确 | 未区分两项指控，涉案实体分类不当 |
+| 4 | **Qwen 3-8B** | 7.3/10 | 3.8/5 | 3.5/5 | 法律要点基本准确，判决结果明确 | 涉案实体信息严重不足 |
+| 5 | **Qwen 2.5-7B** | 4.5/10 | 2.0/5 | 2.5/5 | 法官信息完整 | 原被告颠倒（致命错误），判决结果描述错误 |
+
+---
+
+## 关键信息提取对比表
+
+| 信息项 | Claude 4.5 | Gemini 3 | Minimax M2.7 | Qwen 3-8B | Qwen 2.5-7B |
+|--------|-----------|----------|--------------|-----------|-------------|
+| 原告正确 | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
+| 被告完整（4人+中文名） | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
+| 案由准确 | ✅ | ⚠️ | ✅ | ⚠️ | ⚠️ |
+| 判决结果准确 | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
+| 区分两项指控 | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
+| Snook案提及 | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| Adams案提及 | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| WhatsApp证据 | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
+| 涉案公司完整（CISL/CFHL/Gransing） | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ |
+| 涉案个人完整（Quincy Wong等） | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ |
+| 法官信息完整（5位） | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
+| 监管机构（Stock Exchange） | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ⚠️ | ❌ |
+
+**图例**：
+- ✅ 完全准确/完整
+- ⚠️ 部分准确/有缺陷
+- ❌ 错误/缺失
+
+---
+
+## 详细分析
+
+### 案件核心要点（来自原文）
+
+1. **被告人**：
+   - D1 (MAK KWONG YIU 麦光耀) - CFHL执行董事
+   - D2 (CHAN LAI YEE 陈丽儿) - CFHL高级会计职员
+   - D3 (WONG SHUK ON 黄淑安) - CFHL高级报告职员
+   - D4 (LEE YICK MING 李易明) - Gransing总经理
+
+2. **案件事实**：
+   - CFHL在2014年7月至2015年1月期间发行四批债券
+   - D1最初提议由CISL担任配售代理
+   - 因CISL是关连人士，最终采用Gransing作为名义配售代理，CISL作为次配售代理
+   - CISL配售了所有债券，获得约5080万港元佣金（占CFHL支付给Gransing的5150万港元的98.5%）
+   - 董事会批准与Gransing的配售协议时，未披露与CISL的次配售协议
+
+3. **控罪**：
+   - 控罪1：串谋欺诈CFHL、其董事会、股东及潜在投资者
+   - 控罪3：串谋欺诈联交所
+
+4. **法律争议核心**：
+   - 是否需要证明配售/次配售安排构成关连交易
+   - 使用Gransing作为中介隐藏CISL角色是否构成欺诈性隐瞒
+   - 是否需要适用Snook案的"虚假交易"测试
+
+5. **判决结果**：
+   - 上诉得直，恢复所有被告的定罪
+   - 上诉法院错误地适用了Snook虚假交易测试
+   - 隐瞒无需涉及虚假交易，证明被告不诚实地同意隐瞒CISL的实际角色即可
+   - 证据（包括WhatsApp信息）证明被告不诚实地同意使用Gransing以避免披露CISL的关连人士身份
+
+### 各模型表现分析
+
+#### Claude Sonnet 4.5 - 最佳表现
+- 唯一完整提取所有关键信息的模型
+- 准确区分两项指控并分别说明判决结果
+- 涉案实体识别最全面（包括所有法官、被告、公司、个人）
+- 法律概念理解深刻，准确把握Snook test的错误适用
+- 明确提及WhatsApp消息这一关键证据
+
+#### Gemini 3 Flash Preview - 优秀表现
+- 整体信息提取准确完整
+- 法律分析到位，正确理解案件核心争议
+- 额外识别了Privy Council的角色
+- 主要不足是未提及WhatsApp证据
+
+#### Minimax M2.7 - 良好表现
+- 核心信息准确，判决结果明确
+- 正确理解法律要点
+- 主要不足是未区分两项指控，且涉案实体分类不当
+
+#### Qwen 3-8B - 中等表现
+- 基本信息准确，判决结果正确
+- 涉案实体信息严重不足，缺少关键公司和个人
+- 案由描述过于简略
+
+#### Qwen 2.5-7B - 不合格表现
+- 存在原被告颠倒的致命错误
+- 判决结果描述混乱
+- 涉案实体信息极度简化
+- 不适合用于法律文书的信息提取任务
+
+---
+
+## 结论与建议
+
+### 总体结论
+
+1. **商业大模型显著优于开源小模型**：Claude Sonnet 4.5和Gemini 3 Flash Preview在准确度和完整度上都达到了专业水准（9.0-9.5分），而开源模型Qwen系列表现参差不齐（4.5-7.3分）。
+
+2. **模型规模与性能正相关**：Qwen 3-8B（7.3分）明显优于Qwen 2.5-7B（4.5分），说明模型规模对法律文书理解能力有显著影响。
+
+3. **法律概念理解是关键**：表现优秀的模型都能准确理解Snook test、connected transaction、fiduciary duty等法律概念，而表现较差的模型在这些方面存在明显缺陷。
+
+4. **涉案实体识别是难点**：只有Claude和Gemini能够完整识别所有涉案实体，其他模型在这方面都有不同程度的缺失。
+
+### 应用建议
+
+- **高精度要求场景**（如法律研究、案例分析）：推荐使用 **Claude Sonnet 4.5** 或 **Gemini 3 Flash Preview**
+- **一般应用场景**（如案例摘要、初步筛选）：可以使用 **Minimax M2.7** 或 **Qwen 3-8B**
+- **不推荐场景**：**Qwen 2.5-7B** 存在严重错误，不适合任何法律文书处理任务
+
+### 改进方向
+
+1. 开源模型需要加强对法律概念的理解能力
+2. 涉案实体识别需要更精细的训练数据
+3. 判决结果的结构化提取需要更好的模板设计
+4. 关键证据（如WhatsApp消息）的识别需要加强

en_cases_hkcfi/1995_HKCFI_34/summary-fast.yml

@@ -3,14 +3,18 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - LAM CHARP FAT
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: "Plaintiff, La Sau King, claims declarations and orders regarding her interest in Shop 6\
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  \ and Flat A, "
+case_reason: >-
+  Plaintiff, La Sau King, claims declarations and orders regarding her interest in Shop 6 and Flat A,
+  as well as damages for breach of an agreement and money lent to defendant Lam Charp Fat during their
 case_object:
 - shop ownership
 - flat ownership
+- damages for breach of agreement
+- money lent
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Declarations that the plaintiff is the sole beneficial owner of the flat and that the defendant
     holds the legal estate jointly with the plaintiff on trust for the plaintiff (liability issue)
@@ -32,7 +36,11 @@ judgment_result:
   result: Hearings required. The court ordered further hearings to determine the precise terms of interest
     if not agreed upon.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在本案中，原告LAI SAU KING起诉被告LAM CHARP FAT关于其对店铺和公寓的所有权问题。法院审理了多个争议点，包括所有权归属、借款偿还及违约赔偿等。证据评估显示，尽管双方均声称对房产有贡献，但原告提供的婚礼照片和餐厅装饰细节证明了她与被告的关系更为密切，并且被告的解释显得薄弱。最终，法院支持了原告关于其为公寓唯一受益所有者的主张，并判决被告支付租金收入并偿还借款及违约赔偿共计125,262.07港元。此外，法院还裁定被告需承担诉讼费用，并要求进一步确定利息条款。
+  In this case between La Sau King and Lam Charp Fat, La Sau King sought declarations regarding ownership
+  of a flat and shop, repayment of $50,000, damages for breach of contract, and other relief. The court
+  allowed declarations that La Sau King is the sole beneficial owner of the flat and holds 75% interest
+  in the shop, ordered Lam Charp Fat to repay $50,000, awarded damages of HK$75,262.07, and dismissed
+  Lam Charp Fat's counterclaim. Key evidence included photographs showing La Sau King at a pre
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: The Hon. Mr. Justice Barnett
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkcfi/2016_HKCFI_33/summary-fast.yml

@@ -2,24 +2,29 @@ plaintiff:
 - BIRKENHEAD PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED
 defendant:
 - LAM KAI-MAN (林啟文)
+- PERSON(S) IN OCCUPATION OF THE LAND
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
   Birkenhead Properties and Investments Limited (原告) claims recovery of land against Lam Kai-man (被告),
+  who is in possession of a plot registered as Lot No 769 (part) in Yuen Long, New Territories.
 case_object:
-- plot of ground registered as Lot No 769 (part) in Demarcation District No 99, Yuen Long, New Territories
+- land ownership
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Lam's exclusive possession of the Area Shaded White except the Marshy Area (liability issue)
   result: Disallowed. The court found that Lam failed to establish continuous possession for a period
-    of 12 years, and thus his possession did not meet the requirements to extinguish the Plaintiff’s title.
+    of 12 years and thus did not have the necessary animus possidendi or adverse possession.
 - charge: Plaintiff's other claims (quantum issue)
   result: Abandoned by the Plaintiff. The court noted that the Plaintiff has abandoned its other claims.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  Birkenhead Properties and Investments Limited (原告) sued Lam Kai-man (被告) for recovery of a plot of ground
+  Birkenhead Properties and Investments Limited sued Lam Kai-man for recovery of land in Yuen Long, New
-  in Yuen Long, New Territories. The core issue was whether Lam had acquired title through adverse possession.
+  Territories. The core issue was Lam's claim of adverse possession over the Area Shaded White. The court
-  The court found that Lam's claim failed as he could not establish continuous 12-year,
+  found that Lam failed to establish continuous possession for 12 years and rejected his evidence as inconsistent
+  and damaging to credibility. The plaintiff abandoned other claims. Thus, the court disallowed Lam’s
+  exclusive possession and ordered him to vacate the land.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon To J
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
@@ -28,4 +33,4 @@ involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Lam Kai-man (林啟文)
   reason: 1st Defendant, squatter in possession of the land.
 - entity_name: Person(s) in Occupation of the Land
-  reason: 2nd Defendant, squatter in possession of the land.
+  reason: 2nd Defendant, squatter in occupation of the land.

en_cases_hkcfi/2019_HKCFI_2252/summary-fast.yml

@@ -4,11 +4,13 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - 香港行政長官林鄭月娥女士
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: >-
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  Applicants seek leave for judicial review challenging the Chief Executive's decision not to appointa
+case_reason: "Applicants seek leave for judicial review challenging the Chief Executive's decision not\
+  \ to establish a Commission to inquire into police actions during protests related to proposed amendments\
+  \ to the "
 case_object:
 - appointment of a Commission
 judgment_result:
@@ -17,7 +19,7 @@ judgment_result:
     realistic prospect of success, due to the lack of legal duty on the Chief Executive in Council to
     appoint a Commission, and the inappropriate nature of the relief sought by the applicants.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及郭卓堅和葉慶祥两位申请人向香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭申请司法复核，挑战行政长官林鄭月娥女士未任命调查委员会的决定。核心争议在于政府是否应成立调查委员会以调查近期因《逃犯条例》修订引发的抗议活动及相关问题。法庭经审理后认为，根据《委任调查委员会条例》第2(1)条及《释义及通则条例》第3条的规定，任命调查委员会的权利属于行政长官会同行政会议，法院无权要求或指示其进行此类任命。此外，申请人未能证明行政长官会同行政会议有法律义务必须作出该任命，亦未提供任何合理依据支持其请求。因此，法庭驳回了申请人的司法复核申请，认为其申请缺乏合理的论点和成功的现实可能性。
+  郭卓堅和葉慶祥申请司法复核，要求行政长官林鄭月娥女士成立调查委员会审查与修例相关的抗议事件。法院认为，根据《委任 inquiry 经理条例》第2(1)条，任命委员会的权力属于行政长官会同行政会议，法院无权任命或指示其任命委员会；且申请人未能证明行政长官有法律义务必须任命委员会或因未任命而违反了法律义务。因此，法院驳回申请，认为其没有合理胜诉机会。
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Leung Chun-ying
   reason: Hong Kong Chief Executive, mentioned as 'the Chief Executive' and 'Putative Respondent'.

en_cases_hkcfi/2019_HKCFI_918/summary-fast.yml

@@ -3,11 +3,13 @@ defendant:
 - HKSAR
 - ABDULLAH, MOHAMMAD
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Appellant appeals his conviction for taking employment while remaining in Hong Kong without the授权用户：
+  Appellant appeals conviction for taking employment while remaining in Hong Kong without authority, based
+  on identity as the waiter who served prosecution officers.
 case_object:
 - employment
 judgment_result:
@@ -16,7 +18,11 @@ judgment_result:
     conviction is not unsafe or unsatisfactory, as the evidence can prove the charge beyond a reasonable
     doubt.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及上诉人穆罕默德·阿卜杜拉赫因在未获授权的情况下在香港从事雇佣活动而被控。原告为香港特别行政区，被告为上诉人穆罕默德·阿卜杜拉赫。法院审查了证据评估及证人的可信度问题。法庭认为，尽管存在身份识别的争议，但陪审官认定证人PW1的证词可靠，并确认上诉人在餐厅内从事雇佣活动的事实。陪审官认为上诉人是被观察到服务PW1的蓝条纹衬衫男子，并据此作出有罪判决。法院指出，陪审官在评估证据和证人可信度方面没有明显错误，因此驳回了上诉人的上诉请求。
+  The case involved ABDULLAH, MOHAMMAD's appeal against his conviction for taking employment without authority
+  in Hong Kong. The core issue was the identity of the waiter who served prosecution officers. The court
+  upheld the Magistrate’s finding that ABDULLAH was the waiter based on credible and reliable evidence
+  from prosecution witnesses, including PW1, and rejected the appellant's claims. Key laws and precedents,
+  such as the Turnbull guidelines for identification evidence, were cited to support
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkcfi/2023_HKCFI_1165/summary-fast.yml

@@ -4,12 +4,15 @@ defendant:
 - 'Torture Claims Appeal Board/
 
   Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office'
+- Director of Immigration
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 7 March 2019 of the '
+  Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 7 March 2019 of the Torture
+  Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office refusing to allow her late filing.
 case_object:
 - leave to apply for judicial review
 judgment_result:
@@ -27,9 +30,11 @@ judgment_result:
   result: Disallowed. The Court refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review, finding no error
     of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision and that the findings were not open to challenge.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在本案中，原告Valles Julie Ann Caranto申请高等法院原讼法庭撤销被告Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition
+  In HCAL779/2019, Valles Julie Ann Caranto applied for leave to judicially review the Torture Claims
-  Office于2019年3月7日作出的拒绝其逾期提交上诉通知决定。法庭经审查相关证据后认为，原告未能证明其有成功的合理前景，并且被告在决定中没有程序上的不公平或法律错误。具体而言，法庭否决了原告关于延长申请期限、其他风险（特别是BOR
+  Appeal Board's decision refusing her late filing of an appeal. The Court found no merit in her application
-  3风险）以及对被告第二次决定的司法复审申请。法庭引用了多项判例法，强调申请人必须提供有效地址以确保沟通的有效性，并且未能更新地址将导致不利后果。最终，法庭
+  as she failed to show a realistic prospect of success and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness.
+  Key precedents cited included Karamjit Singh [2018] HKCA 460 §14, emphasizing the duty to provide effective
+  communication details.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkcrc/2016_HKCrC_5/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,11 +1,13 @@
 plaintiff: []
 defendant: []
 jurisdiction_code: HKCrC
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and death-circs
+  Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and circumstances
+  of their loved ones' deaths during a hot air balloon ride in Egypt organized by Kuoni Travel, and
 case_object:
 - cause of death
 - circumstances connected with death
@@ -22,7 +24,11 @@ judgment_result:
     and 3) reasons if the recommendations are not accepted (liability issue)
   result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide a written response.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及香港居民家属请求对一起死亡事件进行调查，以查明死因及相关情况。原告为死者家属，被告包括旅游公司Kuoni和旅游业监管机构TIC。法院审查了事故经过、责任归属等问题，并未判定民事赔偿责任。证据评估方面，法院认为埃及民航部的报告和检方报告详尽专业，且听取了专家证人关于热气球操作的专业意见。最终，法院认定所有九名死者因多处伤及烧伤死亡，事故发生在2013年2月26日早晨，死于热气球飞行途中发生的火灾。法院命令Kuoni提供更全面的培训和信息给前线员工，并制定明确的服务提供商选择标准；TIC和Kuoni需在三个月内书面回复实施建议的情况。
+  {"Case background": "The plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into
+  the cause and circumstances of their loved ones' deaths during a hot air balloon ride in Egypt organized
+  by Kuoni Travel.", "Core issues in dispute": "The court focused on determining the cause of death and
+  the circumstances surrounding it, without addressing civil liability or compensation.", "Court's legal
+  analysis and reasoning": "Evidence from the Egyptian Ministry of Civil Aviation and the UK
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: June Cheung, Coroner
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkcrc/2016_HKCrC_6/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,11 +1,13 @@
 plaintiff: []
 defendant: []
 jurisdiction_code: HKCrC
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and death-circs
+  Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and circumstances
+  of their loved ones' deaths during a hot air ballooning activity in Egypt organized by Kuoni, and
 case_object:
 - cause of death
 - circumstances connected with death
@@ -20,17 +22,22 @@ judgment_result:
 - charge: Both TIC and Kuoni need to reply the Coroner in writing in three months’ time as to 1) whether
     the above recommendations are accepted and if yes 2) what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations
     and 3) reasons if the recommendations are not accepted (liability issue)
-  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide a written response.
+  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide written responses.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及香港居民家属请求对一起死亡事件进行调查，以查明死因及相关情况。原告为死者家属，被告包括旅游公司Kuoni和旅游业监管机构TIC。法院审查了事故经过、责任归属等问题，并未判定民事赔偿责任。证据评估方面，法院认为埃及民航部的报告和检方报告详尽专业，且听取了专家证人关于热气球操作的专业意见。最终，法院认定所有九名死者因多处伤及烧伤死亡，事故发生在2013年2月26日早晨，死于热气球飞行途中发生的火灾。法院命令Kuoni提供更全面的培训和信息给前线员工，并制定明确的服务提供商选择标准；TIC和Kuoni需在三个月内书面回复实施建议的情况。
+  The Coroner's Court investigated the deaths of nine Hong Kong citizens during a hot air ballooning trip
+  in Egypt, focusing on the cause and circumstances of their deaths. Kuoni was ordered to provide more
+  training and set clear criteria for selecting local service providers. The court found that multiple
+  injuries and burns caused the fatalities due to a fuel hose leak leading to a fire during landing. Kuoni
+  must implement recommendations from the court.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: June Cheung, Coroner
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: Kuoni
   reason: Company involved in the tour booking and management of the incident.
-- entity_name: TIC (Tourism Industry Council)
+- entity_name: TIC (Tourism Institute of China)
-  reason: Government department involved in monitoring service providers, cited for recommendations.
+  reason: Government department involved in monitoring and regulating travel agencies, mentioned for their
+    role in setting criteria for destination management companies.
 - entity_name: Hong Kong police
   reason: Government department involved in the investigation of the incident.
 - entity_name: Department of Justice (SPP - Solicitor General)
-  reason: Government department involved in legal support during the investigation, cited for assistance.
+  reason: Government department represented by Mr. IP, SPP during the inquest.

en_cases_hkcrc/2016_HKCrC_7/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,36 +1,43 @@
 plaintiff: []
 defendant: []
 jurisdiction_code: HKCrC
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and death-circs
+  Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and circumstances
+  of their loved ones' deaths during a hot air ballooning activity in Egypt organized by Kuoni, and
 case_object:
 - cause of death
 - circumstances connected with death
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Kuoni to provide more training and information to front desk staff, including receptionists
     and tour escorts (liability issue)
-  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
+  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the mentioned actions.
 - charge: Kuoni to set out clear criteria for selecting destination management companies and local service
     providers with first hand information and to closely monitor the service provided by destination management
     companies and local service providers (liability issue)
-  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
+  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the mentioned actions.
 - charge: Both TIC and Kuoni need to reply the Coroner in writing in three months’ time as to 1) whether
     the above recommendations are accepted and if yes 2) what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations
     and 3) reasons if the recommendations are not accepted (liability issue)
-  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide a written response.
+  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide written responses within
+    three months.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及香港居民家属请求对一起死亡事件进行调查，以查明死因及相关情况。原告为死者家属，被告包括旅游公司Kuoni和旅游业监管机构TIC。法院审查了事故经过、责任归属等问题，并未判定民事赔偿责任。证据评估方面，法院认为埃及民航部的报告和检方报告详尽专业，且听取了专家证人关于热气球操作的专业意见。最终，法院认定所有九名死者因多处伤及烧伤死亡，事故发生在2013年2月26日早晨，死于热气球飞行途中发生的火灾。法院命令Kuoni提供更全面的培训和信息给前线员工，并制定明确的服务提供商选择标准；TIC和Kuoni需在三个月内书面回复实施建议的情况。
+  The case involves relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens seeking an inquiry into their loved ones'
+  deaths during a hot air ballooning activity in Egypt organized by Kuoni. The court, presided over by
+  the Coroner, found that the cause of death was multiple injuries and burns sustained when the balloon
+  caught fire due to a fuel hose leak. While not determining civil liability or compensation, the court
+  ordered Kuoni to provide more training and information to staff and set clear criteria for vet
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: June Cheung, Coroner
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: Kuoni
   reason: Company involved in the tour booking and management of the incident.
 - entity_name: TIC (Tourism Industry Council)
-  reason: Government department involved in monitoring service providers, cited for recommendations.
+  reason: Government department involved in monitoring service providers for the tourism industry.
 - entity_name: Hong Kong police
   reason: Government department involved in the investigation of the incident.
-- entity_name: Department of Justice (SPP - Solicitor General)
+- entity_name: Department of Justice, SPP (Senior Principal Prosecutor) IP
-  reason: Government department involved in legal support during the investigation, cited for assistance.
+  reason: Government department and legal representative involved in supporting the coroner's investigation.

en_cases_hkcrc/2016_HKCrC_9/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,28 +1,36 @@
 plaintiff: []
 defendant: []
 jurisdiction_code: HKCrC
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and death-circs
+  Plaintiffs, relatives of deceased Hong Kong citizens, seek an inquiry into the cause and circumstances
+  of their loved ones' deaths during a hot air balloon ride in Egypt organized by Kuoni Travel, and
 case_object:
 - cause of death
 - circumstances connected with death
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Kuoni to provide more training and information to front desk staff, including receptionists
     and tour escorts (liability issue)
-  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
+  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action but did not determine
+    whether it was liable or not.
 - charge: Kuoni to set out clear criteria for selecting destination management companies and local service
     providers with first hand information and to closely monitor the service provided by destination management
     companies and local service providers (liability issue)
-  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action.
+  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered Kuoni to take the action but did not determine
+    whether it was liable or not.
 - charge: Both TIC and Kuoni need to reply the Coroner in writing in three months’ time as to 1) whether
     the above recommendations are accepted and if yes 2) what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations
     and 3) reasons if the recommendations are not accepted (liability issue)
-  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide a written response.
+  result: No specific outcome stated. The court ordered TIC and Kuoni to provide a written response but
+    did not determine whether they were liable or not.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及香港居民家属请求对一起死亡事件进行调查，以查明死因及相关情况。原告为死者家属，被告包括旅游公司Kuoni和旅游业监管机构TIC。法院审查了事故经过、责任归属等问题，并未判定民事赔偿责任。证据评估方面，法院认为埃及民航部的报告和检方报告详尽专业，且听取了专家证人关于热气球操作的专业意见。最终，法院认定所有九名死者因多处伤及烧伤死亡，事故发生在2013年2月26日早晨，死于热气球飞行途中发生的火灾。法院命令Kuoni提供更全面的培训和信息给前线员工，并制定明确的服务提供商选择标准；TIC和Kuoni需在三个月内书面回复实施建议的情况。
+  The Coroner's Court investigated the deaths of nine Hong Kong citizens during a hot air balloon ride
+  in Egypt, finding that multiple injuries and burns caused their deaths. Kuoni Travel was ordered to
+  provide more training and set clear criteria for selecting service providers, though no liability determination
+  was made. The court emphasized its role as fact-finder rather than determiner of civil liability.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: June Cheung, Coroner
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkcrc/2026_HKCrC_1/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,13 +1,15 @@
 plaintiff: []
 defendant: []
 jurisdiction_code: HKCrC
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Next of kin of deceased passengers challenge the findings of the Inquest into the deaths arising out
+  Next of kin of deceased passengers challenge findings of Coroner regarding deaths arising from maritime
+  collision between Lamma IV and Sea Smooth on October 1, 2012, seeking reconsideration or new inq
 case_object:
-- findings regarding the collision between Lamma IV and Sea Smooth on 1 October 2012
+- deaths of 39 persons
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Plaintiff's claim for personal injury from assault (liability issue)
   result: Allowed. Court accepted plaintiff's testimony as credible, CCTV showed defendant struck first,
@@ -16,12 +18,16 @@ judgment_result:
   result: Partially allowed. Awarded medical expenses HK$8,500 and general damages HK$20,000, totaling
     HK$28,500, with interest and costs.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及死者家属对死因裁判庭关于2012年10月1日Lamma IV与Sea Smooth碰撞事件的裁决提出质疑。核心争议在于碰撞原因及责任归属。法院评估了证据，认为原告证词可信，并依据监控录像和被告部分承认的事实，认定被告先行挑衅并导致冲突。法院援引相关法律，最终判决支持原告，赔偿医疗费用8,500港元及精神损害20,000港元，共计28,500港元，含利息和诉讼费。
+  The case involves next of kin challenging a coroner's findings regarding deaths from a maritime collision
+  between Lamma IV and Sea Smooth in 2012. The court assessed evidence, finding the defendant struck first
+  during an altercation on board, and awarded damages for medical expenses and distress. The court allowed
+  the application for a death inquest to promote transparency and public confidence in maritime safety
+  regulation.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Monica Chow
-  reason: Presiding coroner in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+  reason: Presiding Coroner in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: The Hongkong Electric Company Limited
-  reason: Organised the outing that included the vessels Lamma II and Lamma IV.
+  reason: Organised the outing that included the vessels Lamma IV and Lamma II.
 - entity_name: Islands Ferry Company Limited
   reason: Owner of Sea Smooth, a high-speed passenger ferry involved in the collision.
 - entity_name: Hong Kong & Kowloon Ferry Holdings Limited
@@ -30,11 +36,14 @@ involved_entities:
   reason: Conducted an internal investigation into the practices of the Marine Department following the
     collision.
 - entity_name: Marine Department
-  reason: Subject of the internal investigation conducted by the Transport and Housing Bureau.
+  reason: Involved in the internal investigation conducted by the Transport and Housing Bureau.
 - entity_name: Coroners Ordinance
-  reason: Legal framework under which the inquest was held, but not included as per instructions.
+  reason: Legal framework under which the Inquest was held, although not included as per instructions.
+- entity_name: High Court of Hong Kong
+  reason: Where Coleman J refused an application for a death inquest by next of kin of four deceased.
+- entity_name: Secretary for Justice
+  reason: Invoked section 16 of the Coroners Ordinance to seek an order that an inquest be held, although
+    not included as per instructions.
 - entity_name: Court of Appeal
-  reason: Issued an order on 26 July 2023 that led to this inquest, but not included as per instructions.
+  reason: Issued an Order dated 26 July 2023 for this Inquest, following an appeal brought by the next
-- entity_name: Coleman J
+    of kin of two deceased.
-  reason: High Court judge who refused the application for a death inquest on 24 November 2022, but not
-    included as per instructions.

en_cases_hkct/2018_HKCT_4/summary-fast.yml

@@ -3,17 +3,22 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - MEYER ALUMINIUM LIMITED
 jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
   Taching Petroleum Company Limited and Shell Hong Kong Limited sue Meyer Aluminium Limited for diesel
+  oil sold and delivered, with Meyer alleging a price fixing collusion between Taching and Shell in a
 case_object:
-- fuel oil
+- competition contravention
 judgment_result: []
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在本案中，Taching Petroleum Company Limited和Shell Hong Kong Limited起诉Meyer Aluminium Limited，要求其支付柴油油款。被告Meyer
+  In this case, Taching Petroleum Company Limited and Shell Hong Kong Limited sued Meyer Aluminium Limited
-  Aluminium Limited提出原告之间存在价格固定行为的抗辩，并申请延期提交答辩状及合并审理相关案件。法院认为，鉴于案件尚未完成初步陈述阶段，不宜过早决定合并审理或后续行动事宜。法院指示四起诉讼应共同管理并适当暂缓高等法院的相关诉讼，直至进一步明确争议焦点。
+  for diesel oil sold and delivered, with Meyer alleging a competition contravention by Taching and Shell.
+  The court assessed evidence regarding price fixing collusion under the Competition Ordinance but rejected
+  Meyer's claims as premature due to incomplete pleadings. The judge ordered consolidation of proceedings
+  and stayed the High Court actions until further notice.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Au-Yeung J in Chambers
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
@@ -26,3 +31,9 @@ involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Ms Eva Sit, instructed by Clifford Chance
   reason: Counsel/barristers representing the intended intervener in CTA 1/2018 and the plaintiff in HCA
     1069/2018.
+- entity_name: Taching Petroleum Company Limited
+  reason: Plaintiff in CTA 1/2018 and HCA 1929/2017.
+- entity_name: Meyer Aluminium Limited
+  reason: Defendant in all cases.
+- entity_name: Shell Hong Kong Limited
+  reason: Intended intervener in CTA 1/2018 and plaintiff in HCA 1069/2018.

en_cases_hkct/2020_HKCT_10/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,44 +1,49 @@
-plaintiff: []
+plaintiff:
+- Competition Commission
 defendant:
-- Quantr Limited
+- QUANTR LIMITED
-- Cheung Man Kit
+- CHEUNG MAN KIT
 jurisdiction_code: HKCT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: "Competition Commission claims declarations and orders against the 1st Respondent for contravening\
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  \ a "
+case_reason: >-
+  Competition Commission claims a pecuniary penalty from the 1st Respondent for contravening the First
+  Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619), with the 2nd Respondent being
 case_object:
 - pecuniary penalty
-- declarations of contravention
 judgment_result:
-- charge: Agreement or concerted practice between the 1st Respondent and B Co (liability issue)
+- charge: 1st Respondent's involvement in an agreement or concerted practice (liability issue)
-  result: Allowed. The court found that there was an agreement to exchange future price sensitive information
+  result: Allowed. The court found that the 1st Respondent engaged in price-fixing with B Co, as evidenced
-    and discuss who would win the Bidding Exercise, which had the object of preventing, restricting, or
+    by lowering its quotation for Item (2) based on information exchanged.
-    distorting competition.
+- charge: 2nd Respondent's involvement in an agreement or concerted practice (liability issue)
-- charge: 2nd Respondent's involvement in the contravention (liability issue)
+  result: Allowed. The court found that the 2nd Respondent was involved in the price-fixing agreement
-  result: Allowed. The court determined that the 2nd Respondent was involved in the agreement or concerted
+    with B Co, as he initiated and acted upon the information exchange.
-    practice as he was the sole director and shareholder of the 1st Respondent, initiated the Information
+- charge: Calculation of pecuniary penalty for the 1st Respondent (quantum issue)
-    Exchange, and acted on it by lowering the quotation for Item (2).
+  result: Allowed. The court agreed to impose a pecuniary penalty of HK$37,702.26 on the 1st Respondent
-- charge: Pecuniary penalty calculation (quantum issue)
+    based on the financial information and methodology provided.
-  result: Allowed. The court agreed with the Commission's recommendation to impose a pecuniary penalty
-    of HK$37,702.26 on the 1st Respondent based on its admission of contravening the First Conduct Rule
-    under s.6 of the Ordinance.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In Competition Commission v Quantr Limited & Another [2020] HKCT 10, Hon Linda Chan J declared that
+  In CTEA1/2020, the Competition Commission alleged Quantr Limited (Quantr) and Cheung Man Kit contravened
-  Quantr Limited had contravened the First Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition Ordinance and
+  the First Conduct Rule under section 6 of the Competition Ordinance. The court found Quantr engaged
-  Cheung Man Kit was involved in this contravention. The court found evidence of an agreement to交换竞
+  in price-fixing with B Co, and Cheung initiated information exchange leading to price-fixing. A HK$37,702.26
+  pecuniary penalty was imposed on Quantr.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Linda Chan J
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
-- entity_name: Harris J
+- entity_name: Competition Commission
-  reason: Served as lead judge in Competition Commission v Kam Kwong Engineering Company Limited & ors
+  reason: Applicant in the case.
-    [2020] 4 HKLRD 61, at §§6-17, articulated the justifications for adopting the Carecraft procedure.
+- entity_name: Quantr Limited
-- entity_name: Godfrey Lam J
+  reason: 1st Respondent in the case.
-  reason: Served as lead judge in Competition Commission v W. Hing Construction Company Limited & ors
+- entity_name: Cheung Man Kit
-    [2020] 2 HKLRD 1229, at §§46-74, articulated the approach of the Tribunal in determining the amount
+  reason: 2nd Respondent in the case.
-    of penalty.
 - entity_name: MinterEllison LLP
   reason: Solicitors for the applicant.
 - entity_name: Humphrey & Associates
   reason: Solicitors for the 1st and 2nd respondents.
+- entity_name: Competition Tribunal
+  reason: The tribunal that made the judgment.
+- entity_name: Carecraft Construction Co Ltd
+  reason: Case cited in paragraph 13, articulated summary procedure principles.
+- entity_name: Re Carecraft Construction Co Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 172
+  reason: Case cited in paragraph 13, articulated summary procedure principles.

en_cases_hkct/2021_HKCT_3/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,22 +1,29 @@
-plaintiff: []
+plaintiff:
+- COMPETITION COMMISSION
 defendant:
-- Linde HKO Limited
+- LINDE HKO LIMITED
-- Tse Chun Wah
+- TSE CHUN WAH
-- Linde GmbH
+- LINDE GMBH
 jurisdiction_code: HKCT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  The Competition Commission seeks orders for the Respondents to make general discovery of documents,虽
+  The Competition Commission seeks orders for the Respondents to make general discovery of documents relevant
+  to the enforcement action brought against them.
 case_object:
-- documents
+- discovery and production of documents
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Application for discovery and production of documents (liability issue)
   result: Declined. The application was not properly formulated as a consequence of which the Tribunal
     declined to make an order for the Respondents to make discovery at this time.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及香港特别行政区竞争事务审裁处（以下简称“审裁处”）对林德HKO有限公司、Tse Chun Wah及林德 GmbH提起的反垄断调查申请。申请人要求被申请人提供一般性文件，但未能按照规定程序提出正式申请。审裁处认为，根据《竞争事务审裁处规则》第24条的规定，所有临时性的申请，包括发现和生产文件，必须通过提交形式2的诉状进行。由于申请人未按规定提交诉状，且其在提交材料中假设一般性文件交换是惯例的做法，这与法律规定不符，因此审裁处驳回了申请人的请求。
+  The Competition Commission sought orders for Linde HKO Limited, Tse Chun Wah, and Linde Gmbh to make
+  general discovery of relevant documents in an enforcement action. The court declined the application
+  as it was not properly formulated according to Rule 24 of the Competition Tribunal Rules, which requires
+  a summons be filed. The tribunal noted that while the Commission can make broad discovery, this must
+  be requested through proper procedure.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Harris J
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkct/2022_HKCT_2/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 plaintiff:
-- COMPETITION COMMISSION
+- Competition Commission
 defendant:
 - KAM KWONG ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD
 - GOLDFIELD N&W CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD
@@ -7,28 +7,32 @@ defendant:
 - CHAN KAM SHUI (陳金水)
 - LAM PO WONG (林保旺)
 jurisdiction_code: HKCT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  The Commission petitions for penalties against Kam Kwong Engineering Company Ltd and other Responds,
+  The Commission claims penalties against Kam Kwong Engineering Company Ltd, Goldfield N&W Construction
+  Company Ltd, and Pacific View Engineering Ltd for contravening the First Conduct Rule in relation到
 case_object:
 - penalties
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Declaration that the 3rd Respondent has contravened the First Conduct Rule (liability issue)
-  result: Allowed. The court agreed based on the facts not in dispute, declaring that the 3rd Respondent
+  result: Allowed. The court declared that the 3rd Respondent had contravened the First Conduct Rule based
-    has contravened the First Conduct Rule.
+    on the facts not in dispute.
 - charge: Declaration that the 5th Respondent was a person involved in the contravention of the First
     Conduct Rule (liability issue)
-  result: Allowed. The court agreed based on the facts not in dispute, declaring that the 5th Respondent
+  result: Allowed. The court declared that the 5th Respondent was a person involved in the contravention
-    was a person involved in the contravention of the First Conduct Rule.
+    of the First Conduct Rule based on the facts not in dispute.
-- charge: Costs order for the 3rd and 5th Respondents (quantum issue)
+- charge: Order for costs (quantum issue)
-  result: Allowed. The court agreed that if these proceedings are disposed of summarily, an order should
+  result: Partially allowed. If the Tribunal disposes of these proceedings summarily, an order should
-    be made that the 3rd and 5th Respondents pay the Commission’s costs.
+    be made that the 3rd and 5th Respondents pay the Commission’s costs of these proceedings.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, the Competition Commission (原告) sought penalties against Kam Kwong Engineering Company
+  The Competition Commission sued Kam Kwong Engineering Company Ltd and others for contravening the First
-  Ltd and others for alleged contraventions of the First Conduct Rule under Hong Kong's competition laws.
+  Conduct Rule. The court found that Pacific View Engineering Ltd (3rd Respondent) had breached the rule,
-  The core issues revolved around whether the third and fifth respondents had breached the rule,1
+  while Lin Bowaung (5th Respondent) was involved in the breach. Penalties were imposed on both individually
+  based on their respective roles. Key evidence included false accounting documents and industry practices.
+  Costs were partially awarded to the Commission.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: COMPETITION COMMISSION
   reason: Applicant in the case.

en_cases_hkct/2024_HKCT_1/summary-fast.yml

@@ -14,99 +14,96 @@ defendant:
 - JOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL PLC
 - LEE YUI MING
 jurisdiction_code: HKCT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區競爭事務審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: "Commission and ATAL seek judicial review challenging the Tribunal's decision directing questions\
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  \ on "
+case_reason: >-
+  Commission and ATAL seek judicial review challenging the Tribunal's decision directing questions regarding
+  the imposition of a single penalty in two proceedings in March 2023.
 case_object:
 - judicial review
 judgment_result:
-- charge: Refusal to grant leave to appeal in respect of the determination of Kam Kwong applications (liability
+- charge: Refusal to grant leave to appeal in the 2nd Action (liability issue)
-    issue)
+  result: Disallowed. The Court of Appeal did not find that there was a reasonable prospect of success
-  result: Disallowed. The Court found that there was no material point of law involved and the Commission's
+    or an issue on which it would be helpful for the Court of Appeal to opine.
-    wish to reargue the matter before the Court of Appeal did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of
+- charge: Disclosure of correspondence relating to cooperation agreements entered between two of ATAL’s
-    success.
+    employees and the Commission (liability issue)
-- charge: Refusal to grant leave to appeal in respect of disclosure decision (liability issue)
+  result: Denied. The Court found no material point of law involved, and the appeal did not raise any
-  result: Disallowed. The Court found that it did not have a reasonable prospect of success or raise an
+    issues that required further consideration by the Court of Appeal.
-    issue on which it would be helpful for the Court of Appeal to opine.
+- charge: Direction on the consent summons dated 18 August 2023 in CTEA 2/2023 and the summons dated 27
-- charge: Direction regarding hearing of two proceedings together (disposition issue)
+    September 2023 in CTEA 2/2022 (disposition issue)
-  result: Allowed. The Tribunal directed that the two proceedings be heard together with liberty to apply,
+  result: Allowed. The two proceedings were directed to be heard together with liberty to apply, and costs
-    and ordered that 80% of the costs in both proceedings be paid by the Commission; 20% be paid by the
+    reserved.
-    1st Respondent to the 3rd to 7th Respondents in CTEA 2/2022 and 2nd to 5th Respondents in CTEA 2/2023
-    with a certificate for two counsel.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, the Competition Commission sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision directing
+  The Competition Commission sought judicial review against the Tribunal's decision regarding two competition
-  questions on liability issues in two proceedings (CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023). The core issue was whether
+  cases involving ATAL and others. The Court denied leave to appeal on liability issues, finding no reasonable
-  leave should be granted to appeal the Tribunal’s decisions. The Court assessed evidence and,
+  prospect of success or material points of law. However, it allowed a direction for the two proceedings
+  to be heard together with costs reserved.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Hon Harris J
   reason: President of the Competition Tribunal, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: Jonathan Harris
   reason: President of the Competition Tribunal
 - entity_name: CTEA 2/2022
-  reason: Case number in the Competition Tribunal
+  reason: Case number in which the tribunal heard the action.
 - entity_name: CTEA 2/2023
-  reason: Case number in the Competition Tribunal
+  reason: Case number in which the tribunal heard the action.
 - entity_name: Competition Commission
-  reason: Applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LIMITED
-  reason: 1st Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: 1st Respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: ANALOGUE HOLDINGS LIMITED
-  reason: 2nd Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: 2nd Respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: SHUN HING ENGINEERING CONTRACTING COMPANY LIMITED
-  reason: 3rd Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: 3rd Respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: SHUN HING HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED
-  reason: 4th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: 4th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: SER KA WAI
-  reason: 5th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: 5th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: CHENG KIT SHUN
-  reason: 6th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: 6th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: KWAN SIU KIN
-  reason: 7th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: 7th Respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: JOHNSON CONTROLS HONG KONG LIMITED
-  reason: 2nd Respondent in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: 2nd Respondent in CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: YORK INTERNATIONAL (NORTHERN ASIA) LIMITED
-  reason: 3rd Respondent in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: 3rd Respondent in CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: JOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL PLC
-  reason: 4th Respondent in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: 4th Respondent in CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: LEE YUI MING
-  reason: 5th Respondent in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: 5th Respondent in CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: Mr Norman NIP SC
-  reason: Counsel for the applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: Ms Leticia Tang
-  reason: Counsel for the applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: Mr Jonathan Fung
-  reason: Counsel for the applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the applicant in both CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: Mr Abraham Chan SC
-  reason: Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: Mr Joshua Chan
-  reason: Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: Ms Ebony Ling
-  reason: Counsel for the 3rd respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: Counsel for the 3rd respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: Mr Dicky Cheung
-  reason: Counsel for the 4th respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: Counsel for the 4th respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: Mr Jonathan Ip
-  reason: Counsel for the 4th respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: Counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents in CTEA 2/2022.
 - entity_name: Mr Patrick Siu
-  reason: Counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: Counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents in CTEA 2/2022.
-- entity_name: The 7th respondent appeared in person
+- entity_name: Tang & Ku Solicitors
-  reason: Respondent in CTEA 2/2022
+  reason: Counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents in CTEA 2/2022.
-- entity_name: Mr Norman NIP SC
+- entity_name: Wong Heung Sum & Lawyers
-  reason: Counsel for the applicant in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the 3rd respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
-- entity_name: Ms Leticia Tang
+- entity_name: Au Yeung Chan & Ho, Solicitors
-  reason: Counsel for the applicant in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the 4th respondent in CTEA 2/2022.
-- entity_name: Mr Jonathan Fung
+- entity_name: Deacons
-  reason: Counsel for the applicant in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents in CTEA 2/2022.
-- entity_name: Mr Abraham Chan SC
+- entity_name: Baker & McKenzie
-  reason: Counsel for the 1st respondent in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023.
-- entity_name: Mr Joshua Chan
-  reason: Counsel for the 1st respondent in CTEA 2/2023
 - entity_name: Mr Paul Shieh SC
-  reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: Mr Jonathan Ng
-  reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023.
 - entity_name: Mr Stephen Crosswell, solicitor advocate of Baker & McKenzie
-  reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023
+  reason: Counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents in CTEA 2/2023.
-- entity_name: The 5th respondent was not represented and did not appear
-  reason: Respondent in CTEA 2/2023

en_cases_hkdc/2005_HKDC_216/summary-fast.yml

@@ -3,24 +3,29 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - CHEUNG HOI YING
 jurisdiction_code: HKDC
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區區域法院
+jurisdiction_name: District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
   Plaintiff FONG CHI YUNG trading as LONG FAI BUS CO claims damages from defendant CHEUNG HOI YING for
+  breach of employment contract and conversion, seeking a total sum of $124,570 in damages.
 case_object:
-- damages in the total sum of $124,570
+- damages
 judgment_result:
 - charge: P's claim (liability issue)
-  result: Dismissed. The court found that the evidence did not sufficiently support P’s allegation of
+  result: Dismissed. The court found that the evidence did not support P’s allegation of illegality in
-    illegality in the routes assigned to D, and considered it unlikely that P would benefit public policy
+    the routes assigned to D, and considered it unlikely that P would benefit at the expense of D’s contractual
-    by invalidating the employment contract on such grounds.
+    rights.
-- charge: D's counterclaim (quantum issue)
+- charge: D's counterclaim quantum (quantum issue)
-  result: Allowed. The court awarded D $23,677.70 with interest from November 4, 2002, until payment.
+  result: Awarded. The court ordered P to pay D the sum of HK$23,677.70 with interest thereon at the judgment
-    Additionally, P is ordered to pay D’s costs of defence and counterclaim including all reserved costs,
+    rate from 4th November 2002 until payment.
-    to be taxed if not agreed.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在本案中，原告FONG CHI YUNG（LONG FAI BUS CO）指控被告CHEUNG HOI YING违反雇佣合同并侵占公司财物，要求赔偿124,570港元。法院审理后认为，证据不足以支持原告关于被告非法分配路线的主张，并裁定原告未能证明被告存在违约或侵占行为。相反，法院接受了被告的反诉，判决原告向被告支付23,677.70港元及利息，并承担被告的诉讼费用。
+  In this case between FONG CHI YUNG trading as LONG FAI BUS CO and CHEUNG HOI YING, the court dismissed
+  the plaintiff's claim for damages due to insufficient evidence of breach of contract and conversion.
+  However, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff HK$23,677.70 with interest for a counterclaim
+  regarding wages in lieu of notice and annual leave pay. The court assessed evidence from both parties'
+  testimonies and agreed bundles.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: FONG CHI YUNG t/a LONG FAI BUS CO
   reason: Plaintiff in the case.

en_cases_hkdc/2009_HKDC_282/summary-fast.yml

@@ -3,21 +3,24 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - TANG HING CHEUNG
 jurisdiction_code: HKDC
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區區域法院
+jurisdiction_name: District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Plaintiff, Super Power Properties Limited, claims to set aside a judgment entered in default on 10th
+  Plaintiff, Super Power Properties Limited, claims to set aside a judgment entered in default on 10 February
+  2009 against defendant, Tang Hing Cheung, regarding whether the writ was duly served through
 case_object:
-- judgment
+- service of writ
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Setting aside of judgment on 10 February 2009 (liability issue)
   result: Allowed. The court found that the service of the Writ was irregular and accepted the defendant's
     credible case that he had not received it, despite evidence to the contrary from the plaintiff.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  Super Power Properties Limited sued Tang Hing Cheung for setting aside a default judgment entered on
+  Super Power Properties Limited sued Tang Hing Cheung for setting aside a 2009 default judgment, disputing
-  February 10, 2009. The core issue was whether the service of the writ was irregular and if Tang Hing
+  proper service of the writ. The court found that the service was irregular due to confusing letterbox
-  Cheung had received it. The court assessed evidence from both parties, considering that Tang Hing,
+  numbers and lack of evidence proving delivery. Citing Po Kwong Marble Factory Ltd v Wah Yee Decoration
+  Co Ltd [1996] 4 HKC 157, the judge allowed the setting aside of the judgment.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Super Power Properties Limited
   reason: Plaintiff in the case.

en_cases_hkdc/2013_HKDC_1253/summary-fast.yml

@@ -5,13 +5,16 @@ defendant:
 - GAO Shixin
 - CAI Jingxiang
 jurisdiction_code: HKCA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Defendants, having illegally entered Hong Kong, were jointly charged with theft and illegal remain,罪
+  Defendants, having illegally entered Hong Kong, were jointly charged with theft and illegal remaining;
+  they pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, leading to their conviction.
 case_object:
-- Incense Tree
+- illegal remaining
+- theft
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Theft charge (liability issue)
   result: Allowed. The court considered the appropriate starting point for the theft charge to be 3.5
@@ -28,9 +31,11 @@ judgment_result:
   result: The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. D1 and D3 have a total of 38 months,
     while D2 has a total of 33 months imprisonment.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及被告GAO Huachang、GAO Shixin及CAI Jingxiang非法入境香港并盗窃Incense Tree一案。法院审理了盗窃罪和非法滞留罪的核心争议，认为三名被告共同策划盗伐濒危植物，性质恶劣且数量较大，判处GAO
+  In this case, HKSAR prosecuted GAO Huachang, GAO Shixin, and CAI Jingxiang for theft and illegal remaining
-  Huachang和GAO Shixin各38个月监禁，CAI Jingxiang33个月监禁。对于盗窃罪，法院以3.5年为起点，并考虑认罪等因素减刑25%，最终确定GAO Huachang和GAO Shixin的刑期分别为35个月，CAI
+  in Hong Kong after they illegally entered the city with tools to harvest Incense Tree. The court found
-  Jingxiang为30个月。非法滞留罪方面，依据So Man-king案判例判处各15个月监禁。综合考量后，法院决定将
+  them guilty based on premeditated intent and significant quantity involved. Assessing evidence, the
+  court considered a starting point of 3.5 years for the theft charge, reduced by pleas and mitigating
+  factors, resulting in sentences of 24 months for GAO Shixin (D2), 30 months for GAO Huach
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Deputy District Judge A. Yim
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkdc/2019_HKDC_677/summary-fast.yml

@@ -2,24 +2,29 @@ plaintiff:
 - LI KUEN KWAI JAY
 - LEUNG WING TUNG LILIAN
 defendant:
-- LOK CHUN CHEONG 1st Defendant
+- LOK CHUN CHEONG
-- CHUNG KIT CHU 2nd Defendant
 jurisdiction_code: HKDC
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區區域法院
+jurisdiction_name: District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Plaintiffs, joint owners and occupants of Flat 5E, claim against Defendants for water seepage from a
+  Plaintiffs, joint owners and occupants of Flat 5E, claim against Defendants for water seepage from above
+  affecting their flat and seek relief including declaration, injunction, damages, and costs.
 case_object:
-- water seepage damages
+- water seepage
-- repair costs
+- repair works
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Plaintiffs' claim for water seepage from Defendants' premises (liability issue)
   result: Allowed. The court accepted the Plaintiffs' evidence regarding the deteriorating water seepage
-    condition and the Defendants' failure to investigate or repair the source of the leakage, despite
+    condition and the Defendants' failure to investigate, locate or repair the source of the leakage despite
-    legal principles suggesting otherwise.
+    denying it originated from their premises.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及原告LI KUEN KWAI JAY和LEUNG WING TUNG LILIAN与被告LOK CHUN CHEONG及CHUNG KIT CHU之间的水渗漏损害纠纷。原告指控被告的6E单位导致5E单位天花板渗水，要求赔偿修复费用并停止渗水行为。法院认为，尽管存在争议，但根据《建筑物管理条例》及相关法律原则，被告确实负有维护其物业以避免对其他业主造成损失或不便的合同和普通法上的注意义务。原告提交了证据证明渗漏情况及其持续时间，并指出被告未能调查或修复漏水源头。法院接受了原告关于渗水来源为被告单位的主张，认为被告违反了上述义务。最终，法院支持了原告要求被告承担修复费用及停止渗水行为的诉求
+  In this case, LI KUEN KWAI JAY and LEUNG WING TUNG LILIAN sued LOK CHUN CHEONG for water seepage from
+  above affecting their flat. The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence that the seepage originated
+  from the defendants' premises, citing the defendants' failure to investigate or repair the leakage despite
+  denying its origin. Key laws and precedents included contractual duties under the Deed of Mutual Covenant
+  and common law duty of care. The court allowed the claim for water seepage and repair
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Deputy District Judge Barbara Wong
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkdc/2021_HKDC_611/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,12 +1,15 @@
-plaintiff: []
+plaintiff:
+- HKSAR
 defendant:
 - NG SHEUNG YEE
 jurisdiction_code: HKCA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Plaintiff Mr Tam claims damages from defendant for personal injuries caused by defendant's dangerous
+  Plaintiff, Mr Tam, claims damages from defendant for personal injuries caused by defendant's dangerous
+  driving at a pedestrian crossing in Tai Po Road on 2 November 2019.
 case_object:
 - personal injury damages
 judgment_result:
@@ -15,7 +18,11 @@ judgment_result:
     for all classes of vehicles for a period of 2 years, but the court orders that the defendant cannot
     drive after the disqualification period until he has passed a test of competence to drive.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及原告Tam先生对被告Ng Sheung Yee因驾驶不当导致人身伤害提起的损害赔偿诉讼。核心争议在于被告是否在事故发生时存在注意力不集中或短暂低血压等影响驾驶能力的情况，以及其应承担的责任程度。法院经审理认为，尽管被告有50多年的驾驶经验且未违反交通法规，但未能及时注意到信号灯变化并闯红灯，因此认定其因疏忽导致事故的发生。法院还考虑了被告的悔罪态度及早认罪等因素，最终判处被告缓刑9个月，并在接下来12个月内不得驾驶，如再犯将撤销缓刑。
+  In this case, HKSAR sued NG SHEUNG YEE for personal injuries caused by his dangerous driving at a pedestrian
+  crossing in Tai Po Road on November 2, 2019. The court found that the defendant failed to keep proper
+  lookout and did not slow down before the crossing, rejecting his claim of transient hypotensive episode.
+  While partially accepting NG SHEUNG YEE's lack of deliberate intent, the court sentenced him to a 9-month
+  imprisonment suspended for 12 months due to his late guilty plea, despite his显
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: HH Judge Dufton
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hklat/2009_HKLaT_1/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,17 +1,19 @@
 plaintiff:
-- Kwan Sio Wa Becky
+- KWAN SIU WA BECKY
-- Wu Yee Mei Vera
+- WU YEE MEI VERA
-- Ho Kit Man Jenny
+- HO KIT MAN JENNY
 defendant:
-- Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
+- CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
 jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: >-
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  Claimants Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny seek a corrigendum for the Labour
+case_reason: "Claimants Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny seek a corrigendum for\
+  \ the decision on liability regarding the calculation of statutory holiday pay (SHP) and annual leave\
+  \ pay (ALP) "
 case_object:
-- provisions of ss.41 and 41C of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance
+- correction of legal provisions
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Wages for maternity leave, rest days, sickness days, holidays, and annual leave taken by the
     employee (liability issue)
@@ -19,13 +21,16 @@ judgment_result:
 - charge: Daily rate of holiday pay calculation (quantum issue)
   result: No specific judgment result provided.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在本案中，原告Kwan Sio Wa Becky、Wu Yee Mei Vera和Ho Kit Man Jenny向香港特别行政区劳资审裁处提出申诉，要求 Cathay Pacific Airways
+  In LBTC 2827/2008, Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny sought a corrigendum for
-  Limited 更正其关于产假、休息日、病假、假期及年假工资的计算。主要争议点在于每日假期工资（SHP）和年假工资（ALP）的计算方法是否符合《雇佣（修订）条例》第41条和第41C条的规定。法院在分析证据时，重点考察了原告提供的工资记录及相关法律条款。根据《雇佣（修订）条例》，工资包括员工因产假、休息日等期间获得的所有报酬，并规定了计算每日平均工资的方法，排除了未支付或部分支付的工资天数的影响。
+  the calculation of statutory holiday pay (SHP) and annual leave pay (ALP). The Labour Tribunal, presided
+  by Deputy Presiding Officer Pang Ka Kwong, found that the provisions regarding SHP and ALP needed correction.
+  Specifically, the daily rate of holiday pay should include wages from days not paid due to maternity
+  leave, rest days, sickness days, holidays, or annual leave taken by the employee. A
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer
   reason: Presiding officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: Yau Wai-yuen
-  reason: Clerk to Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer, involved in preparing the corrigendum.
+  reason: Clerk to Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer, involved in the preparation of corrigendum.
 - entity_name: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
   reason: Defendant in this case.
 - entity_name: KWAN SIU WA BECKY

en_cases_hklat/2009_HKLaT_2/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,17 +1,19 @@
 plaintiff:
-- Kwan Siu Wa Becky
+- KWAN SIU WA BECKY
-- Wu Yee Mei Vera
+- WU YEE MEI VERA
-- Ho Kit Man Jenny
+- HO KIT MAN JENNY
 defendant:
-- Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
+- CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
 jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: >-
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  Claimants Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny seek a corrigendum for the Labour
+case_reason: "Claimants Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny seek a corrigendum for\
+  \ the decision on liability regarding the calculation of statutory holiday pay (SHP) and annual leave\
+  \ pay (ALP) "
 case_object:
-- provisions of ss.41 and 41C of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance
+- correction of legal provisions
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Wages for maternity leave, rest days, sickness days, holidays, and annual leave taken by the
     employee (liability issue)
@@ -19,8 +21,11 @@ judgment_result:
 - charge: Daily rate of holiday pay calculation (quantum issue)
   result: No specific judgment result provided.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在本案中，原告Kwan Siu Wa Becky、Wu Yee Mei Vera和Ho Kit Man Jenny指控被告Cathay Pacific Airways Limited未按规定支付产假、休息日、病假、法定假日及年假期间的工资。案件涉及劳资审裁处管辖下的工资计算问题，具体包括产假和年假工资的日率计算。经审理，Pang
+  In LBTC 2827/2008-2829/2008, Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny sought a corrigendum
-  Ka Kwong副主席官评估了双方提交的证据，并引用了《雇佣（修订）条例》第41条和第41C条关于工资及年假工资日率的规定，指出在计算工资时应考虑员工未支付或未全额支付工资的情况。最终，劳资审裁处决定对相关条款进行修正，以确保符合法律规定，并发布了更正文件。
+  for the calculation of statutory holiday pay (SHP) and annual leave pay (ALP). The Labour Tribunal,
+  presided by Deputy Presiding Officer Pang Ka Kwong, found that the provisions regarding SHP and ALP
+  should be amended as per the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance. Specifically, wages during maternity
+  leave, rest days, sickness days, holidays, and annual leave taken by employees were to be dis
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer
   reason: Presiding officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hklat/2009_HKLaT_3/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,17 +1,20 @@
 plaintiff:
-- Kwan Sio Wa Becky
+- KWAN SIU WA BECKY
-- Wu Yee Mei Vera
+- WU YEE MEI VERA
-- Ho Kit Man Jenny
+- HO KIT MAN JENNY
 defendant:
-- Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
+- CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
 jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Claimants Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny seek a corrigendum for the Labour
+  Claimants Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny seek a corrigendum for the decision
+  on liability regarding the calculation of statutory holiday pay (SHP) and annual leave pay (ALP)。
 case_object:
-- provisions of ss.41 and 41C of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance
+- statutory holiday pay
+- annual leave pay
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Wages for maternity leave, rest days, sickness days, holidays, and annual leave taken by the
     employee (liability issue)
@@ -19,12 +22,18 @@ judgment_result:
 - charge: Daily rate of holiday pay calculation (quantum issue)
   result: No specific judgment result provided.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在本案中，原告Kwan Sio Wa Becky、Wu Yee Mei Vera和Ho Kit Man Jenny诉Cathay Pacific Airways Limited要求更正劳工法例中的工资条款。主要争议点在于产假、休息日、病假、假期及年假期间的工资计算问题以及年假工资的日均计算方法。法院依据《雇佣（修订）条例》第41条和第41C条进行了详细分析，指出在计算带薪休假和年假工资时应考虑员工未支付或未全额支付工资的情况，并明确任何因产假、休息日、病假、假期或年假而未支付的工资不应计入平均工资。最终，法院决定对《雇佣（修订）条例》第41条和第41C条的相关条款进行更正，以确保符合法律规定。
+  In the dispute over statutory holiday pay (SHP) and annual leave pay (ALP), Kwan Siu Wa Becky, Wu Yee
+  Mei Vera, and Ho Kit Man Jenny sought a corrigendum for the calculation of SHP and ALP. The court assessed
+  evidence regarding wages during maternity leave, rest days, sickness days, holidays, and annual leave.
+  Key laws cited included sections 41 and 41C of the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance. The final judgment
+  amended the provisions to correctly calculate SHP and ALP, ensuring that any days on
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer
   reason: Presiding officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
+- entity_name: Yau Wai-yuen
+  reason: Clerk to Pang Ka Kwong, Deputy Presiding Officer, involved in the preparation of documents.
 - entity_name: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED
-  reason: Defendant in the case.
+  reason: Defendant in the case, a company involved in the dispute.
 - entity_name: KWAN SIU WA BECKY
   reason: Claimant in LBTC 2827/2008.
 - entity_name: WU YEE MEI VERA

en_cases_hklat/2012_HKLaT_1/summary-fast.yml

@@ -7,9 +7,10 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - LI HING CLEANING SERVICES CO. LIMITED（利興清潔服務有限公司）
 jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
   Plaintiffs claim severance payments from defendant, with the application for review being rejected.
 case_object:
@@ -36,9 +37,11 @@ judgment_result:
   result: Dismissed. The application was deemed unjustified due to the temporal impact on the senescent
     claimants and other relevant factors.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, CHENG KWOK WAH et al., former employees of LI HING CLEANING SERVICES CO. LIMITED (利興清潔服務有限公司),
+  In this case involving severance payments, the Labour Tribunal ruled in favor of five plaintiffs (鄭國華,
-  sued for severance payments and terminal benefits. The Labour Tribunal ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
+  黎亞來, 廖發開, 何清海, 徐志中) against defendant 利興清潔服務有限公司. The tribunal allowed claims for severance payments
-  on their claims for severance payments, ordering immediate payment of HK$13,412.05 to 3
+  and awarded specific amounts to each plaintiff, also granted costs to the plaintiffs. The application
+  for review was rejected as the defendant failed to present new grounds. Additionally, the defendant's
+  request for a stay of payment was dismissed due to the impact on senescent claimants.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Ms. Michelle Lam
   reason: Presiding Officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hklat/2012_HKLaT_2/summary-fast.yml

@@ -7,11 +7,13 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - LI HING CLEANING SERVICES CO. LIMITED（利興清潔服務有限公司）
 jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: >-
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  The five claimants, including Cheng Kwok Wah, claim severance payments or terminal payments from the
+case_reason: "The five claimants, including Cheng Kwok Wah, claim severance payments or terminal payments\
+  \ from the defendant, Li Hing Cleaning Services Co. Ltd., for their termination of employment on December\
+  \ 31, "
 case_object:
 - severance payments
 - terminal payments
@@ -19,15 +21,18 @@ judgment_result:
 - charge: Defendant's liability for severance payments (liability issue)
   result: Allowed. The court found that the Defendant cannot avoid liability for severance payments as
     the Claimants did not indicate they would switch to another company and were awaiting specific arrangements
-    from the Defendant.
+    from the Defendant, which were not provided.
 - charge: Severance payment quantum (quantum issue)
-  result: Allowed. The Defendant is ordered to pay severance payments of HK$13,412.05 to the 3rd Claimant,
+  result: Allowed. The court ordered that the Defendant pay severance payments of HK$13,412.05 to the
-    HK$3,003.42 to the 4th Claimant, HK$21,848 to the 7th Claimant, HK$13,827.86 to the 9th Claimant,
+    3rd Claimant, HK$3,003.42 to the 4th Claimant, HK$21,848 to the 7th Claimant, HK$13,827.86 to the
-    and HK$13,826.82 to the 11th Claimant.
+    9th Claimant, and HK$13,826.82 to the 11th Claimant.
 - charge: Claimants' claims for terminal payments (liability issue)
   result: Dismissed. The court dismissed the claims for terminal payments as severance payments were allowed.
-judgment_summary: >-
+judgment_summary: "The Labour Tribunal ruled that Cheng Kwok Wah et al., former employees of Li Hing Cleaning\
-  本案涉及郑国华等五名原告与利兴清洁服务有限公司之间的雇佣关系终止及补偿金争议。原告主张被告应支付遣散费或终止协议金，理由是被告未续签劳动合同且单方面变更工作时间，构成严重违约。法院经审理认为，被告未能证明原告自愿离职或因其他原因主动辞职，因此判决支持了原告关于遣散费的诉求，并确定具体金额分别为郑国华13,412.05港元、黎亚来3,003.42港元、廖发开21,848港元、何清海13,827.86港元及徐志中13,826.82港元。法院还指出，鉴于原告有权因被告违约而终止合同，故驳回了关于终止协议金的诉求。
+  \ Services Co. Ltd., were entitled to severance payments due to the company's breach of contract, specifically\
+  \ unilaterally changing working conditions without their consent. The court assessed evidence showing\
+  \ the company failed to provide promised re-deployment arrangements and cited legal precedents supporting\
+  \ constructive dismissal claims. The defendant was ordered to pay severance payments ranging from "
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Ms. Michelle Lam
   reason: Presiding Officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
@@ -35,13 +40,13 @@ involved_entities:
   reason: Management authority that entered into contracts with the Defendant for street cleaning services.
 - entity_name: Li Hing Cleaning Services Co. Ltd
   reason: Defendant in this case, providing cleaning services to FEHD.
-- entity_name: Cheng Kwok Wah（鄭國華）
+- entity_name: 3rd Claimant (鄭國華)
-  reason: 3rd Claimant in the case.
+  reason: Claimant in this case, claiming severance payments from the Defendant.
-- entity_name: Lai Ah Loi（黎亞來）
+- entity_name: 4th Claimant (黎亞來)
-  reason: 4th Claimant in the case.
+  reason: Claimant in this case, claiming severance payments from the Defendant.
-- entity_name: Liu Fat Hoi（廖發開）
+- entity_name: 7th Claimant (廖發開)
-  reason: 7th Claimant in the case.
+  reason: Claimant in this case, claiming severance payments from the Defendant.
-- entity_name: Ho Ching Hoi（何清海）
+- entity_name: 9th Claimant (何清海)
-  reason: 9th Claimant in the case.
+  reason: Claimant in this case, claiming severance payments from the Defendant.
-- entity_name: Hsu Che Cheong（徐志中）
+- entity_name: 11th Claimant (徐志中)
-  reason: 11th Claimant in the case.
+  reason: Claimant in this case, claiming severance payments from the Defendant.

en_cases_hkldt/1983_HKLDT_145/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,31 +1,34 @@
-plaintiff: []
+plaintiff:
+- CHOW CHI KEUNG
 defendant:
 - CHINA LIGHT & POWER COMPANY LIMITED
 jurisdiction_code: null
 jurisdiction_name: null
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
   Applicant, Chow Chi Keung, claims compensation from respondent, China Light & Power Company Limited,
+  for diminution in value of property due to registration of statutory electricity easement under the
 case_object:
-- compensation for diminution in value of property
+- compensation
 judgment_result:
-- charge: Diminution of value due to wayleave (liability issue)
+- charge: Diminution of property value (quantum issue)
-  result: Allowed. The court found that while the transmission lines cross only two-thirds of the property,
+  result: Partially allowed. The court determined that while the value of the applicant's property has
-    their presence affects the entire property and significantly detracts from its appearance and enjoyment.
+    diminished due to the presence of transmission lines, the exact amount cannot be quantified using
-- charge: Quantification of compensation (quantum issue)
+    comparables or unit rates. Compensation is awarded at a lump sum of HK$20,000, with interest from
-  result: Partially allowed. The court determined a lump sum compensation of HK$20,000 for the diminution
+    March 30, 1981.
-    in value of the applicant's property and awarded interest since March 30, 1981.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, Chow Chi Keung, a registered Crown lessee, sued China Light & Power Company Limited for
+  Chow Chi Keung sued China Light & Power Company Limited for compensation due to a statutory electricity
-  compensation due to the construction of a 400 KV transmission network affecting his property's value.
+  easement. The court partially allowed the claim, awarding HK$20,000 with interest, as exact diminution
-  The core issues were whether the company was liable and how much compensation should be awarded.
+  in property value could not be quantified using comparables or unit rates. Evidence on health and interference
+  effects was assessed, but no compensation was granted for anticipated injuries.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: His Honour Judge Cruden
   reason: Presiding Officer in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: M.W. Phillips, Esq.
-  reason: Member of the Tribunal, involved in the decision-making process.
+  reason: Member of the Tribunal, participated in the decision-making process.
-- entity_name: China Light & Power Company Limited
-  reason: Respondent in the case, responsible for constructing the 400 KV transmission network.
 - entity_name: Chow Chi Keung
-  reason: Applicant in the case, registered Crown lessee of the land affected by the construction.
+  reason: Applicant in this case, seeking compensation for diminution in value of property.
+- entity_name: China Light & Power Company Limited
+  reason: Respondent in this case, responsible for constructing the 400 KV transmission network.

en_cases_hkldt/2004_HKLDT_32/summary-fast.yml

@@ -3,11 +3,13 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - Richards, Cameron Keith
 jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Applicant, landlord Chan Yuk Wah, claims possession and payment of arrears of rent from tenant, Mr. 
+  Applicant, landlord Chan Yuk Wah, claims possession and payment of arrears of rent from tenant Richards,
+  Cameron Keith, regarding lease at No.67B. 10th Street, Hong Lok Yuen.
 case_object:
 - possession
 - arrears of rent
@@ -23,9 +25,11 @@ judgment_result:
 - charge: Costs (quantum issue)
   result: Ordered. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant's costs of this application fixed at HK$800.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, Chan Yuk Wah (the applicant) sought possession and payment of arrears of rent from Richards,
+  In this possession application, Chan Yuk Wah sought arrears of rent and possession from Richards, Cameron
-  Cameron Keith (the respondent). The dispute centered around the validity of an agreement for a rent
+  Keith, for non-payment since October 2003. The court found no valid agreement on rent reduction due
-  reduction. The court found that there was no valid agreement due to the lack of consideration
+  to lack of consideration, disallowing the tenant's claims. The tenant was ordered to pay HK$3840 in
+  arrears from March to April 2004 and ongoing rent at HK$18,000 per month until delivery of vacant possession.
+  Costs were also awarded to the landlord.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Member C.Y. LAM
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkldt/2006_HKLDT_29/summary-fast.yml

@@ -3,18 +3,22 @@ plaintiff:
 defendant:
 - CHAN KAI LUNG LERRY
 jurisdiction_code: HKLAT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區勞資審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Sound View Enterprises Limited claims against Chan Kai Lung Lerry for specific performance of a land
+  Sound View Enterprises Limited claims against Chan Kai Lung Lerry for specific performance of a contract
+  regarding the sale and purchase of land in Hong Kong.
 case_object:
-- land title
+- specific performance
+- land ownership
 judgment_result: []
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In the case between Sound View Enterprises Limited (the plaintiff) and Chan Kai Lung Lerry (the defendant),
+  Sound View Enterprises Limited sued Chan Kai Lung Lerry for specific performance of a land sale contract.
-  the plaintiff sought specific performance of a land agreement. The core issue was whether the defendant
+  The court assessed evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid contractual
-  should fulfill his contractual obligations regarding the transfer of land title. Deputy判
+  agreement, rejecting its claim for specific performance. Deputy Judge Wong cited relevant precedents
+  but ultimately ruled against the plaintiff.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Deputy Judge WONG, Presiding Officer, Lands Tribunal
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkldt/2008_HKLdT_130/summary-fast.yml

@@ -2,32 +2,34 @@ plaintiff:
 - CLP POWER HONG KONG LIMITED
 defendant:
 - COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
-jurisdiction_code: null
+jurisdiction_code: HKLT
-jurisdiction_name: null
+jurisdiction_name: Lands Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Applicant seeks reconsideration of the decision on case management from 3 November, citing potential
+  Applicant challenges the respondent's decision on case management, specifically regarding the inclusion
+  of additional years in the appeal and potential refunds, seeking reconsideration of the 3rd Nov.
 case_object:
-- refunds
+- reconsideration of case management decision
-- financial disadvantage
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Review application to reconsider decision on staying appeals (liability issue)
-  result: Denied. The judge found no good and cogent reasons to revisit the decision made by this court
+  result: Denied. The judge found no good and cogent reasons to revisit the decision made on November
-    on 3 November that there should not be any lifting of those stays pending the outcome of the test
+    3, 2008, regarding the test appeal procedure as a preferred option for resolving the matters efficiently.
-    appeal.
+judgment_summary: >-
-judgment_summary: "CLP Power Hong Kong Limited (the plaintiff) sought a review of the decision from Hon\
+  CLP POWER HONG KONG LIMITED challenged the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation's decision on case management,
-  \ Lam J, President of the Lands Tribunal, dated 3 November, which decided to stay appeals pending a\
+  specifically regarding the inclusion of additional years in the appeal and potential refunds. The Lands
-  \ test appeal. The core issue was whether there should be reconsideration of the case management decision.\
+  Tribunal denied the review application, finding no good reasons to revisit the November 3, 2008, decision
-  \ The court's "
+  that a single test appeal should be chosen while others remain stayed. Key legal analysis focused on
+  section 11A of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance, emphasizing the two-stage process
 involved_entities:
-- entity_name: Hon Lam J, President of the Lands Tribunal
+- entity_name: Hon Lam J
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: Mr Richard Wilmot
-  reason: Counsel/barrister representing CLP Power Hong Kong Limited.
+  reason: Counsel/barrister representing CLP POWER HONG KONG LIMITED (Applicant)
 - entity_name: Messrs Holman Fenwick Willan
-  reason: Law firm representing CLP Power Hong Kong Limited.
+  reason: Law firm instructing Mr Richard Wilmot
 - entity_name: Mr Bernard Man
-  reason: Counsel/barrister representing the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation.
+  reason: Counsel/barrister representing the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation (Respondent)
 - entity_name: Department of Justice
-  reason: Government department representing the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation.
+  reason: Government department instructing Mr Bernard Man

en_cases_hkldt/2009_HKLdT_5/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,38 +1,39 @@
 plaintiff:
-- The Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion
+- THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF JET FOIL MANSION
 defendant:
 - YING KONG COMPANY LIMITED
 jurisdiction_code: HKLDT
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區土地審裁處
+jurisdiction_name: Lands Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  The Applicant (Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion) seeks to challenge Ying Kong Company Limited
+  The Applicant (Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion) seeks to challenge Ying Kong Company Limited's
+  summons to strike out the Applications and other orders related to these management fee claims,主张
 case_object:
-- the validity and enforceability of the contract between the Applicant and SKLAC, Solicitors & Notaries
+- 管理费索赔
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Application for stay on the ground set out in paragraph 1(a) of the amended summons (liability
     issue)
   result: Disallowed. The court found that SKLAC had proper authority to act for and on behalf of the
-    IO, and there is no basis to say that these applications were commenced or continued without such
+    IO, and there is no basis to say they acted without such authority.
-    authority.
 - charge: Application for stay on the ground set out in paragraph 1(b) of the amended summons (liability
     issue)
-  result: Disallowed. The court found that SKLAC had validly notified their intention to act for the IO,
+  result: Disallowed. The court found that SKLAC's notice to act was valid and there is no basis to set
-    and there is no basis to set aside this notice.
+    it aside at this moment.
-- charge: Ordering SKLAC to bear costs personally (quantum issue)
+- charge: Order for SKLAC to bear costs personally (quantum issue)
-  result: Denied. There is no basis for ordering SKLAC to be personally liable for the costs of these
+  result: Dismissed. There is no basis for the order that SKLAC be personally liable for the costs of
-    applications on an indemnity basis.
+    and occasioned by these Applications on an indemnity basis.
 - charge: Any other order for the further conduct of these Applications (liability issue)
-  result: Dismissed. The court concluded that section 20A(7) does not apply, and Ying Kong’s amended summons
+  result: Disallowed. The court concluded that section 20A(7) does not apply to this case, and Ying Kong's
-    is dismissed with costs to the IO.
+    amended summons is dismissed with costs to the IO.
 - charge: Costs (quantum issue)
-  result: The amended summons is dismissed with costs to the IO on the District Court scale. Costs shall
+  result: The amended summons is dismissed with costs to the IO. Costs shall be taxed on the District
-    be taxed if not agreed upon within 14 days, and a certificate for counsel will be required.
+    Court scale, if not agreed, with certificate for counsel. In the absence of any appointment within
+    14 days to argue costs, this costs order shall become absolute.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, The Incorporated Owners of Jet Foil Mansion (IO) sought to challenge Ying Kong Company
+  本案涉及Jet Foil Mansion业主（原告）与Ying Kong公司关于管理费索赔的纠纷。法院分析了原告聘请SKLAC作为代理人是否具有适当授权，以及原告提起诉讼是否存在不当行为等问题。法院认为，原告聘请SKLAC的行为有效，并未违反相关法律规定。最终判决驳回被告要求撤销原告申请及其他相关请求，并裁定由Ying
-  Limited and Messrs S K Lam, Alfred Chan & Co (SKLAC), Solicitors & Notaries, regarding the validity
+  Kong公司承担诉讼费用。
-  and enforceability of their contract. Key issues included whether SKLAC had proper authority to act
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: His Hon Judge Leung
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkmagc/2005_HKMagC_2/summary-fast.yml

@@ -1,29 +1,34 @@
 plaintiff:
-- HKSAR
+- HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
 defendant:
 - CHAN NAI MING
 jurisdiction_code: null
 jurisdiction_name: null
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  Plaintiff seeks protection against defendant's criminal infringement of copyright, challenging the正当
+  Plaintiff seeks protection against defendant's criminal infringement of copyright, seeking deterrent-based
+  sentencing to prevent future piracy.
 case_object:
-- copyright infringement
+- copyright
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Sentence for BitTorrent distribution (liability issue)
-  result: Imposed. The court determined that the defendant's actions were not suitable for community service
+  result: Imposed. The defendant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, concurrent on each charge.
-    and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment, emphasizing that future offenders should be deterred
+    The court emphasized the need for deterrence and warned future offenders that sentences could be more
-    with potentially harsher sentences.
+    severe.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, HKSAR (plaintiff) sought protection against CHAN NAI MING's (defendant) criminal infringement
+  The plaintiff sought protection against the defendant's copyright infringement via BitTorrent distribution.
-  of copyright through BitTorrent distribution. The core issue was the defendant's liability for distributing
+  The court sentenced the defendant to three months' imprisonment for each charge, emphasizing deterrence
-  copyrighted material without permission. The court analyzed evidence related to the3
+  and citing principles from Secretary for Justice v Choi Sai-lok [1999] 4 HKC 334. The court assessed
+  the seriousness of the offense based on harm caused rather than commercial gain, warning against diluting
+  the firm approach towards copyright piracy.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Colin Mackintosh, Magistrate
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
 - entity_name: Choi Sai-lok
   reason: Served as a defendant in the case Secretary for Justice v Choi Sai-lok [1999] 4 HKC 334, articulated
-    principles related to intellectual property rights infringement.
+    principles related to intellectual property rights infringement, cited in paragraph 2 of this judgment.
 - entity_name: Secretary for Justice
-  reason: Party involved in the case Secretary for Justice v Choi Sai-lok [1999] 4 HKC 334.
+  reason: Party involved in the case Secretary for Justice v Choi Sai-lok [1999] 4 HKC 334, which provided
+    foundational principles for sentencing policy regarding intellectual property rights infringement.

en_cases_hkmagc/2014_HKMagC_13/summary-fast.yml

@@ -4,28 +4,34 @@ defendant:
 - C.L. Management Services Limited
 - AU Suet-ming, Clarea
 jurisdiction_code: HKCA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: "Securities and Futures Commission claims against C.L. Management Services Limited and AU\
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  \ Suet-ming, "
+case_reason: >-
+  Securities and Futures Commission claims against C.L. Management Services Limited and AU Suet-ming for
+  carrying on regulated activities without a licence and holding themselves out as such.
 case_object:
-- unlicensed business operation
+- regulatory compliance
-- aiding and abetting
+- business licensing
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Michael's involvement in the case (liability issue)
-  result: Disallowed. The court found that Michael’s testimony was not credible due to his self-incrimination
+  result: Disallowed. The court found that the prosecution did not adequately consider and settle Michael’s
-    risk and the prosecution’s lack of proper handling.
+    potential self-incrimination before proceeding with the trial, which was a significant procedural
+    flaw.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及香港证券及期货事务监察委员会（原告）对C.L.管理服务有限公司及其代表AU Suet-ming, Clarea的指控，包括未获许可进行受监管活动以及协助和教唆。法院分析了相关法律条款，并引用了Hin
+  The Securities and Futures Commission sued C.L. Management Services Limited and AU Suet-ming for unlicensed
-  Lin Yee v HKSAR [2010] 13 HKCFAR 142及Kulemesin Yuriy & Tang Dock Wah v HKSAR [FACC 6 and 7 of 2012]的判例，认为涉及监管事务的罪行应被视为绝对责任。法院指出，鉴于此类罪行的社会影响较小且立法意图在于确保尽职行为而非证明故意或过失，因此不应要求证明被告方具有主观过错。最终判决C.L.管理服务公司
+  business activities. The court assessed evidence, finding procedural flaws in prosecuting Michael's
+  involvement. Key laws like Hin Lin Yee v HKSAR were cited to determine that offences under section 114
+  are absolute liabilities, not requiring full mens rea. The final judgment disallowed the prosecution’s
+  claims due to these legal principles and procedural issues.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Securities and Futures Commission
   reason: Plaintiff in the case, responsible for prosecuting C.L. Management Services Limited and AU Suet-ming,
     Clarea.
 - entity_name: C.L. Management Services Limited
-  reason: Defendant 1 in the case, accused of carrying on a business in a regulated activity without a
+  reason: Defendant 1 in the case, accused of carrying on a business in advising on corporate finance
-    license.
+    without a license.
 - entity_name: AU Suet-ming, Clarea
   reason: Defendant 2 in the case, accused of aiding and abetting D1's offenses.
 - entity_name: Magistrate June Cheung

en_cases_hkmagc/2014_HKMagC_6/summary-fast.yml

@@ -7,16 +7,20 @@ jurisdiction_code: null
 jurisdiction_name: null
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  HKSAR, regarding the defendants' alleged breach of contract and tortious acts in connection with a 3
+  HKSAR, regarding the defendants' alleged breach of contract and tortious acts in connection with a construction
+  project, challenges the decision of the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts (Case No. 4906-
 case_object:
 - contract performance
 - damages
 judgment_result: []
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In KCS 4906-4911/2013, the HKSAR sued Ho Chung Yi Henry, Wong Pak Lam, and Hieng Lee Engineering Company
+  The case involves HKSAR's challenge against Ho Chung Yi Henry, Wong Pak Lam, and Hieng Lee Engineering
-  Limited for alleged breaches of contract and tortious acts related to a construction project. The core
+  Company Limited for alleged breaches in a construction project. Key issues include contract performance
-  issues revolved around the defendants' performance under the contract and any resultant harm
+  and damages. The court assessed evidence regarding test results, rejecting claims that the defendants'
+  actions were within normal parameters. Citing relevant precedents, the Chief Magistrate found the defendants
+  liable. The final judgment ordered compensation to HKSAR.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Chief Magistrate, Mr Clement Lee
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkmagc/2014_HKMagC_7/summary-fast.yml

@@ -4,28 +4,33 @@ defendant:
 - C.L. Management Services Limited
 - AU Suet-ming, Clarea
 jurisdiction_code: HKCA
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭
+jurisdiction_name: Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: "Securities and Futures Commission claims against C.L. Management Services Limited and AU\
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  \ Suet-ming, "
+case_reason: >-
+  Securities and Futures Commission claims against C.L. Management Services Limited and AU Suet-ming for
+  carrying on regulated activities without a licence and holding themselves out as such.
 case_object:
-- unlicensed business operation
+- regulatory compliance
-- aiding and abetting
+- business licensing
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Michael's involvement in the case (liability issue)
-  result: Disallowed. The court found that Michael’s testimony was not credible due to his self-incrimination
+  result: Disallowed. The court found that the prosecution did not adequately consider and settle Michael’s
-    risk and the prosecution’s lack of proper handling.
+    potential self-incrimination before proceeding to trial, which was a significant procedural flaw.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  本案涉及香港证券及期货事务监察委员会（原告）对C.L.管理服务有限公司及其代表AU Suet-ming, Clarea的指控，包括未获许可进行受监管活动以及协助和教唆。法院分析了相关法律条款，并引用了Hin
+  The Securities and Futures Commission sued C.L. Management Services Limited and AU Suet-ming for unlicensed
-  Lin Yee v HKSAR [2010] 13 HKCFAR 142及Kulemesin Yuriy & Tang Dock Wah v HKSAR [FACC 6 and 7 of 2012]的判例，认为涉及监管事务的罪行应被视为绝对责任。法院指出，鉴于此类罪行的社会影响较小且立法意图在于确保尽职行为而非证明故意或过失，因此不应要求证明被告方具有主观过错。最终判决C.L.管理服务公司
+  business activities, alleging regulatory non-compliance. The court assessed evidence and cited precedents
+  like Hin Lin Yee v HKSAR to determine that offences under section 114 are absolute liabilities due to
+  the nature of regulatory offenses. The court found procedural flaws in prosecuting Michael's involvement
+  and disallowed the charge. The final judgment upheld the defendants' acquittal.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Securities and Futures Commission
   reason: Plaintiff in the case, responsible for prosecuting C.L. Management Services Limited and AU Suet-ming,
     Clarea.
 - entity_name: C.L. Management Services Limited
-  reason: Defendant 1 in the case, accused of carrying on a business in a regulated activity without a
+  reason: Defendant 1 in the case, accused of carrying on a business in advising on corporate finance
-    license.
+    without a license.
 - entity_name: AU Suet-ming, Clarea
   reason: Defendant 2 in the case, accused of aiding and abetting D1's offenses.
 - entity_name: Magistrate June Cheung

en_cases_hkmagc/2023_HKMagC_2/summary-fast.yml

@@ -5,19 +5,25 @@ defendant:
 - D1 Tang Ngok Kwan (鄧岳君)
 - D5 Tsui Hon Kwong (徐漢光)
 jurisdiction_code: HKMagC
-jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區裁判法院
+jurisdiction_name: Magistrates' Courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
 case_reason: >-
-  HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung and others, regarding failure to comply with notice to provide information on
+  HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung and others, regarding failure to comply with notice to provide information under
+  the National Security Law, against Chow Hang Tung, Tang Ngok Kwan, Tsui Hon Kwong, challenging N
 case_object:
-- information
+- information compliance
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Defendants' compliance with the Notice (liability issue)
   result: Convicted. The court found that the Defendants were obliged to answer and their non-compliance
     was unjustified, as established beyond reasonable doubt.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  在HKSAR与鄒幸彤及其他被告一案中，原告指控被告未按要求提供信息。裁判法院经审理后认为，被告有义务回应并提交所需信息，其未能履行该义务构成违法行为。证据评估显示，证人PW1和PW2的证词支持了原告关于被告应配合调查的要求。法院援引相关法律条文，强调维护国家安全的重要性及措施的有效性。最终，裁判法院判决被告违反通知要求，必须提供相关信息并承担相应法律责任。
+  In HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung et al., the Magistrates' Courts of Hong Kong found that the defendants, including
+  Chow Hang Tung, Tang Ngok Kwan, and Tsui Hon Kwong, were required to comply with a notice to provide
+  information under the National Security Law. The court assessed evidence from prosecution witnesses,
+  including PW1 and PW2, and concluded their non-compliance was unjustified. Key laws cited included Sch.
+  5 of the National Security Law. Defendants were convicted for failing to comply.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Mr Peter Law, Principal Magistrate
   reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.

en_cases_hkoat/2007_HKOAT_1/summary-fast.yml

@@ -7,10 +7,13 @@ jurisdiction_code: null
 jurisdiction_name: null
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: "Plaintiff, a celebrity couple, claims damages from defendants for the publication of photographs\
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  \ in "
+case_reason: >-
+  Plaintiff, a celebrity couple, claims damages from defendants for the publication of photographs in
+  newspapers that they argue are indecent and cause distress, targeting their personal injuries and名誉权
 case_object:
-- distress damages
+- photographs
+- publications
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Indecency of the Oriental article (liability issue)
   result: Found indecent. The photographs were given prominent effect and showed a half-naked body of
@@ -20,9 +23,11 @@ judgment_result:
     photographs of a half-naked model with gratuitous portrayals of her body and breasts, which are considered
     indecent.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (plaintiff) sued
+  The case involves a celebrity couple suing Oriental Daily Publisher Limited and The Sun News Publisher
-  Oriental Daily Publisher Limited and The Sun News Publisher Limited (defendants) for publishing indecent
+  Limited for publishing indecent photographs causing distress. The court found both publications indecent,
-  photographs of a celebrity couple without their consent. The core issue was whether the photos
+  as they prominently displayed half-naked bodies with gratuitous portrayals of the models' breasts. Evidence
+  on publishers' intentions was deemed irrelevant. The court excluded comparative evidence from other
+  publications. Orders were made in favor of the plaintiffs.
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Mr W LEUNG Esq
   reason: Presiding Magistrate in OAT Tribunal

en_cases_hkoat/2007_HKOAT_2/summary-fast.yml

@@ -7,31 +7,33 @@ jurisdiction_code: null
 jurisdiction_name: null
 case_location:
 - 香港特別行政區
-case_reason: "Plaintiff, a celebrity couple, claims damages from defendants for the publication of photographs\
+- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
-  \ in "
+case_reason: >-
+  Plaintiff, a celebrity couple, claims damages from defendants for the publication of photographs in
+  newspapers that they argue are indecent and cause distress.
 case_object:
 - distress damages
 judgment_result:
 - charge: Indecency of the Oriental article (liability issue)
-  result: Found indecent. The photographs were given prominent effect and showed a half-naked body of
+  result: Allowed. The court found that the photographs were given prominent effect and showed a half-naked
-    a model with gratuitous portrayals of her body and breasts, which are considered indecent.
+    body of a model, which is indecent.
 - charge: Indecency of the Sun article (liability issue)
-  result: Found indecent. Similar to the Oriental article, the Sun article showed titillating and seductive
+  result: Allowed. Similar findings as for the Oriental article, with the same reasons provided.
-    photographs of a half-naked model with gratuitous portrayals of her body and breasts, which are considered
-    indecent.
 judgment_summary: >-
-  In this case, the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (plaintiff) sued
+  The case involves a celebrity couple suing Oriental Daily Publisher Limited and The Sun News Publisher
-  Oriental Daily Publisher Limited and The Sun News Publisher Limited (defendants) for publishing indecent
+  Limited for publishing indecent photographs that caused them distress. The court found both defendants
-  photographs of a celebrity couple without their consent. The core issue was whether the photos
+  liable, as the photographs showed half-naked bodies of models prominently displayed without proper context.
+  Evidence regarding editorial intentions was deemed irrelevant. Key legal points included the irrelevance
+  of previous non-indecent classifications and the focus on the final product's ind
 involved_entities:
 - entity_name: Mr W LEUNG Esq
   reason: Presiding Magistrate in OAT Tribunal
 - entity_name: Ms LAM Koon-kun and Mr Tse Wun-shuen, Edward
   reason: Adjudicators in the case
 - entity_name: Miss Agnes Chan, SGC
-  reason: Counsel representing the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA)
+  reason: Counsel for the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA)
 - entity_name: Mr Cheng Huan and Mr Paul Leung, instructed by Messrs Iu, Lai & Li
-  reason: Counsel representing the defendants
+  reason: Counsel for the defendants (Oriental Daily Publisher Limited and The Sun News Publisher Limited)
 - entity_name: Oriental Daily Publisher Limited
   reason: Defendant in the case
 - entity_name: The Sun News Publisher Limited

hk_case_extractor.py

@@ -41,14 +41,24 @@ hk_case_extractor.py
 依賴
 ----
     pip install requests pyyaml
-    本地需運行：ollama serve
-    模型：ollama pull qwen2.5:7b-instruct   （推薦，中文抽取甜點）
-         或 ollama pull glm4:9b
 
 使用
 ----
-    python hk_case_extractor.py <input.txt>
+    # 使用本地 Ollama（默認）
+    python hk_case_extractor.py case.txt
     python hk_case_extractor.py case.txt --model qwen2.5:7b-instruct --out result.yaml
+    
+    # 使用 OpenRouter
+    python hk_case_extractor.py case.txt \\
+        --base-url https://openrouter.ai/api/v1 \\
+        --model anthropic/claude-3.5-sonnet \\
+        --api-key your-api-key
+    
+    # 使用 OpenAI
+    python hk_case_extractor.py case.txt \\
+        --base-url https://api.openai.com/v1 \\
+        --model gpt-4 \\
+        --api-key your-api-key
 """
 
 from __future__ import annotations
@@ -69,9 +79,10 @@ import yaml
 # 配置
 # =============================================================================
 
-OLLAMA_URL = "https://openai.iconsz.com/ollama3090/api/chat"
+DEFAULT_BASE_URL = "http://localhost:11434/v1"  # Ollama 默認 OpenAI 兼容端點
 DEFAULT_MODEL = "qwen2.5:7b-instruct"
-DEFAULT_TIMEOUT = 240
+DEFAULT_API_KEY = "ollama"  # Ollama 不需要真實 key，但 API 需要提供
+DEFAULT_TIMEOUT = 600  # 增加到 10 分鐘，適應遠程服務器
 MAX_RETRIES = 2
 
 
@@ -101,7 +112,7 @@ def detect_language(text: str) -> str:
 # 1. 預處理：去噪 + 切段 + 規則抽元數據
 # =============================================================================
 
-JURISDICTION_MAP: dict[str, str] = {
+JURISDICTION_MAP_ZH: dict[str, str] = {
     "HKCFA":  "香港特別行政區終審法院",
     "HKCA":   "香港特別行政區高等法院上訴法庭",
     "HKCFI":  "香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭",
@@ -118,6 +129,23 @@ JURISDICTION_MAP: dict[str, str] = {
     "HKCrC":  "香港特別行政區死因裁判法庭",
 }
 
+JURISDICTION_MAP_EN: dict[str, str] = {
+    "HKCFA":  "Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKCA":   "Court of Appeal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKCFI":  "Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKDC":   "District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKMC":   "Magistrates' Courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKMagC": "Magistrates' Courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKSCT":  "Small Claims Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKLT":   "Lands Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKLDT":  "Lands Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKLD":   "Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKLAT":  "Labour Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKCT":   "Competition Tribunal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKCorC": "Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+    "HKCrC":  "Coroner's Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region",
+}
+
 NEUTRAL_CITATION_RE = re.compile(
     r"\[(\d{4})\]\s*(HKCFA|HKCA|HKCFI|HKDC|HKMagC|HKMC|HKSCT|HKLT|HKLD|HKCT|HKCorC)\s*(\d+)",
     re.I,
@@ -164,18 +192,26 @@ def clean_text(raw: str) -> str:
     return t.strip()
 
 
-def extract_metadata_by_rule(text: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
+def extract_metadata_by_rule(text: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict[str, Any]:
     """純規則：司法區域、案號、案件地點（默認香港特區）
     
     優先級：
     1. 案號前綴（最可靠）
     2. Neutral Citation
     3. 法院全稱匹配
+    
+    Args:
+        text: 判決書文本
+        lang: 語言代碼 ('zh' 或 'en')
     """
+    # 根據語言選擇對應的映射表和默認地點
+    jurisdiction_map = JURISDICTION_MAP_ZH if lang == 'zh' else JURISDICTION_MAP_EN
+    default_location = ["香港特別行政區"] if lang == 'zh' else ["Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"]
+    
     meta: dict[str, Any] = {
         "jurisdiction_code": None,
         "jurisdiction_name": None,
-        "case_location": ["香港特別行政區"],
+        "case_location": default_location,
         "case_number": None,
     }
 
@@ -189,27 +225,32 @@ def extract_metadata_by_rule(text: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
         if prefix in CASE_NO_PREFIX_MAP:
             code = CASE_NO_PREFIX_MAP[prefix]
             meta["jurisdiction_code"] = code
-            meta["jurisdiction_name"] = JURISDICTION_MAP.get(code)
+            meta["jurisdiction_name"] = jurisdiction_map.get(code)
 
     # 次優先：Neutral Citation（如果案號未能確定法院）
     if not meta["jurisdiction_code"]:
         if m := NEUTRAL_CITATION_RE.search(text):
             code = m.group(2).upper()
             # 規範化大小寫
-            for k in JURISDICTION_MAP:
+            for k in jurisdiction_map:
                 if k.upper() == code:
                     meta["jurisdiction_code"] = k
-                    meta["jurisdiction_name"] = JURISDICTION_MAP[k]
+                    meta["jurisdiction_name"] = jurisdiction_map[k]
                     break
 
     # 最後：靠法院全稱反查（僅在前兩者都失敗時使用，且只搜索前2000字符）
     if not meta["jurisdiction_code"]:
         header = text[:2000]  # 只在開頭搜索，避免被引用案例干擾
-        for code, full in JURISDICTION_MAP.items():
+        # 同時搜索中英文法院名稱
-            short = full.replace("香港特別行政區", "")
+        for code in jurisdiction_map:
-            if full in header or short in header:
+            full_zh = JURISDICTION_MAP_ZH.get(code, "")
+            full_en = JURISDICTION_MAP_EN.get(code, "")
+            short_zh = full_zh.replace("香港特別行政區", "")
+            short_en = full_en.replace("Hong Kong Special Administrative Region", "").replace(" of the ", " ")
+            
+            if any(name in header for name in [full_zh, short_zh, full_en, short_en] if name):
                 meta["jurisdiction_code"] = code
-                meta["jurisdiction_name"] = full
+                meta["jurisdiction_name"] = jurisdiction_map[code]
                 break
 
     return meta
@@ -331,39 +372,56 @@ def gather_chunks(text: str,
     return "\n\n[…]\n\n".join(pieces), len(hits)
 
 
-def gather_all(text: str) -> dict[str, str]:
+def gather_all(text: str,
+               head_length: int = 5000,
+               tail_length: int = 5000,
+               entities_window: int = 400,
+               entities_max: int = 6500,
+               analysis_window: int = 500,
+               analysis_max: int = 6500) -> dict[str, str]:
     """為每個 group 召回對應的上下文片段
     
     優化策略：
-    1. 基礎信息（當事人）：直接取開頭2000字符，不使用關鍵詞召回
+    1. 基礎信息（當事人）：直接取開頭 head_length 字符，不使用關鍵詞召回
-    2. 判決結果：重點關注尾部4000字符 + 關鍵詞召回
+    2. 事由與標的（reason_object）：直接取開頭 head_length 字符，不使用關鍵詞召回
-    3. 其他字段：保持關鍵詞召回策略
+    3. 判決結果：取開頭 head_length 字符 + 尾部 tail_length 字符
+    4. 其他字段：保持關鍵詞召回策略
+    
+    Args:
+        text: 判決書全文
+        head_length: 開頭截取長度（默認 5000）
+        tail_length: 尾部截取長度（默認 5000）
+        entities_window: 實體關鍵詞窗口半徑（默認 400）
+        entities_max: 實體片段最大總長度（默認 6500）
+        analysis_window: 分析關鍵詞窗口半徑（默認 500）
+        analysis_max: 分析片段最大總長度（默認 6500）
     """
     out: dict[str, str] = {}
     
-    # 1. 當事人信息：直接從開頭2000字符提取
+    # 1. 當事人信息：直接從開頭截取
-    out["parties"] = text[:2000]
+    out["parties"] = text[:head_length]
     out["_parties_hits"] = "0"  # 不使用關鍵詞，標記為0
     
-    # 2. 判決結果：優先使用尾部4000字符，再補充關鍵詞召回
+    # 2. 事由與標的：直接從開頭截取
-    tail_text = text[-4000:] if len(text) > 4000 else text
+    out["reason_object"] = text[:head_length]
-    # 如果尾部不足4000字，用關鍵詞召回補充
+    out["_reason_object_hits"] = "0"  # 不使用關鍵詞，標記為0
-    if len(tail_text) < 4000:
-        kws = KEYWORD_GROUPS["judgment_result"]
-        ctx, hits = gather_chunks(text, kws, half_window=500, max_total=6500)
-        out["judgment_result"] = ctx
-        out["_judgment_result_hits"] = str(hits)
-    else:
-        out["judgment_result"] = tail_text
-        out["_judgment_result_hits"] = "0"  # 直接使用尾部，不計算關鍵詞命中
     
-    # 3. 其他字段：使用關鍵詞召回
+    # 3. 判決結果：取開頭 + 尾部
+    head_text = text[:head_length] if len(text) > head_length else text
+    tail_text = text[-tail_length:] if len(text) > tail_length else ""
+    # 如果文本足夠長，拼接頭尾；否則只用全文
+    if tail_text and head_text != tail_text:
+        out["judgment_result"] = head_text + "\n\n[…]\n\n" + tail_text
+    else:
+        out["judgment_result"] = head_text
+    out["_judgment_result_hits"] = "0"  # 直接截取，不計算關鍵詞命中
+    
+    # 4. 其他字段：使用關鍵詞召回
     params: dict[str, tuple[int, int]] = {
-        "reason_object":   (500, 6000),
+        "entities":        (entities_window, entities_max),
-        "entities":        (400, 6500),
+        "analysis":        (analysis_window, analysis_max),
-        "analysis":        (500, 6500),
     }
-    for group in ["reason_object", "entities", "analysis"]:
+    for group in ["entities", "analysis"]:
         kws = KEYWORD_GROUPS[group]
         hw, mt = params[group]
         ctx, hits = gather_chunks(text, kws, half_window=hw, max_total=mt)
@@ -374,39 +432,128 @@ def gather_all(text: str) -> dict[str, str]:
 
 
 # =============================================================================
-# 2. Ollama 客戶端：JSON Schema 強制 + 重試
+# 2. OpenAI 兼容客戶端：支持 Ollama / OpenRouter / OpenAI 等
 # =============================================================================
 
 @dataclass
-class OllamaClient:
+class OpenAICompatibleClient:
+    """OpenAI 兼容的 API 客戶端
+    
+    支持：
+    - Ollama (http://localhost:11434/v1)
+    - OpenRouter (https://openrouter.ai/api/v1)
+    - OpenAI (https://api.openai.com/v1)
+    - 其他 OpenAI 兼容的服務
+    """
     model: str = DEFAULT_MODEL
-    url: str = OLLAMA_URL
+    base_url: str = DEFAULT_BASE_URL
+    api_key: str = DEFAULT_API_KEY
     timeout: int = DEFAULT_TIMEOUT
 
     def chat_json(self, system: str, user: str, schema: dict,
                   temperature: float = 0.0,
-                  num_ctx: int = 8192) -> dict:
+                  max_tokens: int = 4096) -> dict:
-        """調用 Ollama，使用 format=<JSON Schema> 強制結構化輸出"""
+        """調用 OpenAI 兼容 API，使用 response_format 強制 JSON 輸出"""
+        # 構建請求 URL
+        url = f"{self.base_url.rstrip('/')}/chat/completions"
+        
+        # 構建請求頭
+        headers = {
+            "Content-Type": "application/json",
+            "Authorization": f"Bearer {self.api_key}",
+        }
+        
+        # 構建請求體
         payload = {
             "model": self.model,
             "messages": [
                 {"role": "system", "content": system},
                 {"role": "user", "content": user},
             ],
-            "format": schema,
+            "temperature": temperature,
-            "stream": False,
+            "max_tokens": max_tokens,
-            "options": {"temperature": temperature, "num_ctx": num_ctx},
+            "response_format": {"type": "json_object"},  # OpenAI 兼容的 JSON 模式
         }
-        r = requests.post(self.url, json=payload, timeout=self.timeout)
+        
+        # 發送請求
+        try:
+            r = requests.post(url, json=payload, headers=headers, timeout=self.timeout)
             r.raise_for_status()
-        content = r.json()["message"]["content"]
+        except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e:
+            print(f"❌ API 請求失敗：{e}", file=sys.stderr)
+            print(f"   URL: {url}", file=sys.stderr)
+            print(f"   Model: {self.model}", file=sys.stderr)
+            raise
+        
+        # 解析響應
+        try:
+            response_data = r.json()
+        except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
+            print(f"❌ API 響應不是有效的 JSON", file=sys.stderr)
+            print(f"   響應狀態碼: {r.status_code}", file=sys.stderr)
+            print(f"   響應內容: {r.text[:500]}", file=sys.stderr)
+            raise
+        
+        # 提取內容
+        if "choices" not in response_data or not response_data["choices"]:
+            print(f"❌ API 響應缺少 choices 字段", file=sys.stderr)
+            print(f"   響應數據: {json.dumps(response_data, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)[:500]}", file=sys.stderr)
+            raise ValueError("API 響應格式錯誤：缺少 choices 字段")
+        
+        content = response_data["choices"][0]["message"]["content"]
+        
+        if not content or not content.strip():
+            print(f"❌ 模型返回空內容", file=sys.stderr)
+            print(f"   完整響應: {json.dumps(response_data, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)[:1000]}", file=sys.stderr)
+            raise ValueError("模型返回空內容")
+        
+        # 清理可能的 markdown 代碼塊包裹
+        content = self._clean_json_response(content)
+        
         try:
             return json.loads(content)
         except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
-            # 嘗試剝離可能的 ```json fence
+            # 如果仍然失敗，打印錯誤信息以便調試
-            stripped = re.sub(r"^```(?:json)?\s*|\s*```$", "",
+            print(f"❌ JSON 解析失敗", file=sys.stderr)
-                              content.strip(), flags=re.S)
+            print(f"   錯誤: {e}", file=sys.stderr)
-            return json.loads(stripped)
+            print(f"   原始內容（前500字符）:\n{content[:500]}", file=sys.stderr)
+            print(f"   原始內容（後500字符）:\n{content[-500:]}", file=sys.stderr)
+            raise
+    
+    def _clean_json_response(self, content: str) -> str:
+        """清理模型輸出中可能包含的 markdown 代碼塊標記和開頭的 <think> 標籤
+        
+        處理以下格式：
+        - <think>{{思考的內容}}</think> (僅開頭)
+        - ```json\n{...}\n```
+        - ```\n{...}\n```
+        - {... 前後有空白字符
+        """
+        content = content.strip()
+        
+        # 移除開頭的 <think>...</think> 標籤及其內容
+        # 使用非貪婪匹配，支持多行，只匹配開頭
+        if content.startswith("<think>") or content.startswith("<THINK>"):
+            match = re.match(r'<think>.*?</think>\s*', content, flags=re.DOTALL | re.IGNORECASE)
+            if match:
+                content = content[match.end():]
+                content = content.strip()
+        
+        # 移除開頭的 ```json 或 ```
+        if content.startswith("```"):
+            # 找到第一個換行符
+            first_newline = content.find("\n")
+            if first_newline != -1:
+                content = content[first_newline + 1:]
+        
+        # 移除結尾的 ```
+        if content.endswith("```"):
+            # 找到最後一個 ``` 之前的換行符
+            last_fence = content.rfind("```")
+            if last_fence != -1:
+                content = content[:last_fence]
+        
+        return content.strip()
 
     def chat_json_with_retry(self, system: str, user: str, schema: dict,
                               validator=None, **kw) -> dict:
@@ -462,14 +609,23 @@ PARTIES_SYSTEM_ZH = """你是香港法律文書信息抽取助手。
 
 只輸出符合 schema 的 JSON，不要解釋。"""
 
-PARTIES_FEWSHOT_ZH = """範例輸入：
+PARTIES_FEWSHOT_ZH = """範例1（原告/被告格式）：
 BETWEEN
     陳大文 (CHAN TAI MAN)              上訴人
     AND
     香港房屋委員會 (Hong Kong Housing Authority)   答辯人
 
-範例輸出：
+輸出：
-{"plaintiff":["陳大文 (CHAN TAI MAN)"],"defendant":["香港房屋委員會 (Hong Kong Housing Authority)"]}"""
+{"plaintiff":["陳大文 (CHAN TAI MAN)"],"defendant":["香港房屋委員會 (Hong Kong Housing Authority)"]}
+
+範例2（申請人/答辯人格式）：
+申請人：
+    李小明
+答辯人：
+    入境事務處處長
+
+輸出：
+{"plaintiff":["李小明"],"defendant":["入境事務處處長"]}"""
 
 # 英文提示詞
 PARTIES_SYSTEM_EN = """You are a Hong Kong legal document information extraction assistant.
@@ -488,45 +644,59 @@ Classification Rules:
 
 Output only JSON conforming to schema, no explanation."""
 
-PARTIES_FEWSHOT_EN = """Example Input:
+PARTIES_FEWSHOT_EN = """Example 1 (Plaintiff/Defendant format):
 BETWEEN
     Dr Paul KI Ping-ki              1st Plaintiff
     Hong Kong Washington Company    2nd Plaintiff
     AND
     Next Magazine Publishing Ltd    1st Defendant
 
-Example Output:
+Output:
-{"plaintiff":["Dr Paul KI Ping-ki","Hong Kong Washington Company"],"defendant":["Next Magazine Publishing Ltd"]}"""
+{"plaintiff":["Dr Paul KI Ping-ki","Hong Kong Washington Company"],"defendant":["Next Magazine Publishing Ltd"]}
+
+Example 2 (Applicant/Respondent format):
+Between:
+MO YUK PING
+Applicant
+and
+HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
+Respondent
+
+Output:
+{"plaintiff":["MO YUK PING"],"defendant":["HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION"]}"""
 
 
-def extract_parties(client: OllamaClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
+def extract_parties(client: OpenAICompatibleClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
     system = PARTIES_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else PARTIES_SYSTEM_EN
     fewshot = PARTIES_FEWSHOT_ZH if lang == 'zh' else PARTIES_FEWSHOT_EN
     
     if lang == 'zh':
-        user = f"{fewshot}\n\n請從以下判決書開頭部分抽取：\n```\n{context[:2000]}\n```"
+        user = f"{fewshot}\n\n請從以下判決書開頭部分抽取：\n```\n{context[:5000]}\n```"
     else:
-        user = f"{fewshot}\n\nPlease extract from the following judgment header:\n```\n{context[:2000]}\n```"
+        user = f"{fewshot}\n\nPlease extract from the following judgment header:\n```\n{context[:5000]}\n```"
     
     return client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user, PARTIES_SCHEMA)
 
 
 # --- Call 2: 事由 + 標的 ----------------------------------------------------
 
-REASON_OBJECT_SCHEMA = {
+def get_reason_object_schema(lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
+    """根據語言返回對應的 schema（英文字數限制更寬鬆）"""
+    max_length = 100 if lang == 'zh' else 200  # 英文允許 2 倍字符數
+    return {
         "type": "object",
         "properties": {
-        "case_reason": {"type": "string", "maxLength": 100},
+            "case_reason": {"type": "string", "maxLength": max_length},
             "case_object": {"type": "array", "items": {"type": "string"}},
         },
         "required": ["case_reason", "case_object"],
     }
 
 # 中文提示詞
-REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_ZH = """從香港判決書中抽取：
+REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_ZH = f"""從香港判決書中抽取：
 
 1. case_reason（事由）：
-   - 嚴格 ≤100 字，單句
+   - 嚴格 ≤100 字，單句，清晰完整
    - 結構：[原告身份] + [針對什麼事件/行為] + [向誰] + [提出什麼請求]
    - 覆核/上訴案件須註明對哪個裁決提出覆核（含日期/案號）
    - 嚴禁包含：判決結果、法庭分析、案發細節、證據評估
@@ -544,10 +714,10 @@ REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT_ZH = """範例輸出：
 {"case_reason":"申索人為商場保安員，就被告於2023年7月在商場毆打申索人造成的人身傷害向被告提出損害賠償申索。","case_object":["人身傷害賠償","醫療費用","精神困擾賠償"]}"""
 
 # 英文提示詞
-REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_EN = """Extract from Hong Kong judgment:
+REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_EN = f"""Extract from Hong Kong judgment:
 
 1. case_reason (Cause of Action):
-   - Strictly ≤100 words, single sentence
+   - Strictly ≤200 words, single sentence，clear and complete
    - Structure: [Plaintiff's identity] + [regarding what event/conduct] + [against whom] + [what relief sought]
    - For judicial review/appeal cases, specify which decision is being challenged (with date/case number)
    - MUST NOT include: judgment results, court analysis, incident details, evidence assessment
@@ -567,11 +737,14 @@ REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT_EN = """Example Output:
 
 def _reason_object_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
     r = out.get("case_reason", "")
-    if len(r) > 100:
+    max_length = 100 if lang == 'zh' else 200  # 英文允許 2 倍字符數
+    target_length = 80 if lang == 'zh' else 160  # 建議壓縮目標
+    
+    if len(r) > max_length:
         if lang == 'zh':
-            return False, f"case_reason 共 {len(r)} 字，超過 100 字上限，請壓縮到 80 字以內。"
+            return False, f"case_reason 共 {len(r)} 字，超過 {max_length} 字上限，請壓縮到 {target_length} 字以內。"
         else:
-            return False, f"case_reason has {len(r)} characters, exceeds 100 limit, please compress to within 80."
+            return False, f"case_reason has {len(r)} characters, exceeds {max_length} limit, please compress to within {target_length}."
     if not out.get("case_object"):
         if lang == 'zh':
             return False, "case_object 不能為空。"
@@ -594,23 +767,22 @@ def _reason_object_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
     return True, ""
 
 
-def extract_reason_object(client: OllamaClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
+def extract_reason_object(client: OpenAICompatibleClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
     system = REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else REASON_OBJECT_SYSTEM_EN
     fewshot = REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT_ZH if lang == 'zh' else REASON_OBJECT_FEWSHOT_EN
+    schema = get_reason_object_schema(lang)
+    max_length = 100 if lang == 'zh' else 200
     
     if lang == 'zh':
         user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
-                f"請從以下片段（多處關鍵詞召回拼接）抽取：\n```\n{context[:6000]}\n```")
+                f"請從以下判決書開頭部分抽取：\n```\n{context[:5000]}\n```")
     else:
         user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
-                f"Please extract from the following segments (keyword-based retrieval):\n```\n{context[:6000]}\n```")
+                f"Please extract from the following judgment header:\n```\n{context[:5000]}\n```")
     
-    out = client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user,
+    return client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user,
-                                       REASON_OBJECT_SCHEMA,
+                                       schema,
                                        validator=lambda x: _reason_object_validator(x, lang))
-    if len(out["case_reason"]) > 100:
-        out["case_reason"] = out["case_reason"][:100]
-    return out
 
 
 # --- Call 3: 判決結果 -------------------------------------------------------
@@ -684,8 +856,13 @@ JUDGMENT_RESULT_FEWSHOT_EN = """Example Output:
 ]}"""
 
 
-def _judgment_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
+def _judgment_validator(out: dict | list, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
+    # 处理模型直接返回列表的情况
+    if isinstance(out, list):
+        items = out
+    else:
         items = out.get("judgment_result", [])
+    
     if not items:
         if lang == 'zh':
             return False, "judgment_result 不能為空。"
@@ -710,21 +887,26 @@ def _judgment_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
     return True, ""
 
 
-def extract_judgment_result(client: OllamaClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
+def extract_judgment_result(client: OpenAICompatibleClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
     system = JUDGMENT_RESULT_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else JUDGMENT_RESULT_SYSTEM_EN
     fewshot = JUDGMENT_RESULT_FEWSHOT_ZH if lang == 'zh' else JUDGMENT_RESULT_FEWSHOT_EN
     
     if lang == 'zh':
         user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
-                f"請從以下判決書尾部（命令/裁定部分）抽取：\n```\n{context[-4000:]}\n```")
+                f"請從以下判決書片段（開頭5000字符 + 尾部5000字符）抽取：\n```\n{context}\n```")
     else:
         user = (f"{fewshot}\n\n"
-                f"Please extract from the following judgment ending (order/disposition section):\n```\n{context[-4000:]}\n```")
+                f"Please extract from the following judgment segments (first 5000 + last 5000 characters):\n```\n{context}\n```")
     
-    return client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user,
+    result = client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user,
                                         JUDGMENT_RESULT_SCHEMA,
                                         validator=lambda x: _judgment_validator(x, lang))
     
+    # 如果模型返回的是列表，包装成标准格式
+    if isinstance(result, list):
+        return {"judgment_result": result}
+    return result
+
 
 # --- Call 4: 涉及實體 -------------------------------------------------------
 
@@ -824,7 +1006,7 @@ def _entities_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
     return True, ""
 
 
-def extract_entities(client: OllamaClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
+def extract_entities(client: OpenAICompatibleClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
     system = ENTITIES_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else ENTITIES_SYSTEM_EN
     fewshot = ENTITIES_FEWSHOT_ZH if lang == 'zh' else ENTITIES_FEWSHOT_EN
     
@@ -844,10 +1026,13 @@ def extract_entities(client: OllamaClient, context: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> di
 
 # --- Call 5: 判決總結（基於已抽取結果 + 分析段，不從原文重生） -----------
 
-SUMMARY_SCHEMA = {
+def get_summary_schema(lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
+    """根據語言返回對應的 schema（英文字數限制更寬鬆）"""
+    max_length = 300 if lang == 'zh' else 500  # 英文允許約 1.67 倍字符數
+    return {
         "type": "object",
         "properties": {
-        "judgment_summary": {"type": "string", "maxLength": 300},
+            "judgment_summary": {"type": "string", "maxLength": max_length},
         },
         "required": ["judgment_summary"],
     }
@@ -864,6 +1049,8 @@ SUMMARY_SYSTEM_ZH = """根據已抽取的結構化字段 + 法庭分析段，撰
     - 引用了哪些關鍵法律或判例？
 (4) 最終裁決結果及命令
 
+**重要：judgment_summary 必須使用中文撰寫。**
+
 嚴格 ≤300 字。只輸出 JSON。"""
 
 # 英文提示詞
@@ -878,27 +1065,45 @@ Four-element structure (must cover all, in coherent single paragraph):
     - What key laws or precedents were cited?
 (4) Final judgment and orders
 
-Strictly ≤300 words. Output only JSON."""
+**IMPORTANT: judgment_summary MUST be written in English.**
+
+Strictly ≤500 characters. Output only JSON."""
 
 
 def _summary_validator(out: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[bool, str]:
     s = out.get("judgment_summary", "")
-    if len(s) > 300:
+    max_length = 300 if lang == 'zh' else 500  # 英文允許約 1.67 倍字符數
+    min_length = 80 if lang == 'zh' else 120  # 英文最小長度也相應增加
+    
+    if len(s) > max_length:
         if lang == 'zh':
-            return False, f"summary 共 {len(s)} 字，超過 300 字上限，請壓縮。"
+            return False, f"summary 共 {len(s)} 字，超過 {max_length} 字上限，請壓縮。"
         else:
-            return False, f"summary has {len(s)} characters, exceeds 300 limit, please compress."
+            return False, f"summary has {len(s)} characters, exceeds {max_length} limit, please compress."
-    if len(s) < 80:
+    if len(s) < min_length:
         if lang == 'zh':
             return False, "summary 過短，請完整覆蓋四要素。"
         else:
             return False, "summary too short, please cover all four elements."
+    
+    # 檢查語言是否正確
+    chinese_chars = len(re.findall(r'[\u4e00-\u9fff]', s))
+    total_chars = len(s.strip())
+    if total_chars > 0:
+        chinese_ratio = chinese_chars / total_chars
+        if lang == 'zh' and chinese_ratio < 0.3:
+            return False, "judgment_summary 必須使用中文撰寫，但檢測到主要為英文內容，請用中文重寫。"
+        elif lang == 'en' and chinese_ratio > 0.3:
+            return False, "judgment_summary MUST be written in English, but detected primarily Chinese content. Please rewrite in English."
+    
     return True, ""
 
 
-def extract_summary(client: OllamaClient,
+def extract_summary(client: OpenAICompatibleClient,
                      prior: dict, analysis: str, lang: str = 'zh') -> dict:
     system = SUMMARY_SYSTEM_ZH if lang == 'zh' else SUMMARY_SYSTEM_EN
+    schema = get_summary_schema(lang)
+    max_length = 300 if lang == 'zh' else 500
     
     if lang == 'zh':
         user = f"""已抽取的字段：
@@ -923,13 +1128,10 @@ Court analysis excerpt:
 {analysis[:3500]}
 ```
 
-Please write judgment_summary ≤300 words covering four elements."""
+Please write judgment_summary ≤500 characters covering four elements."""
     
-    out = client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user, SUMMARY_SCHEMA,
+    return client.chat_json_with_retry(system, user, schema,
                                        validator=lambda x: _summary_validator(x, lang))
-    if len(out["judgment_summary"]) > 300:
-        out["judgment_summary"] = out["judgment_summary"][:300]
-    return out
 
 
 # =============================================================================
@@ -949,7 +1151,7 @@ ENTITY_NAME_BLACKLIST = [
 ]
 
 
-def validate_and_fix(result: dict) -> tuple[dict, list[str]]:
+def validate_and_fix(result: dict, lang: str = 'zh') -> tuple[dict, list[str]]:
     warnings: list[str] = []
 
     # case_location：剔除法院/場所/建築
@@ -963,13 +1165,17 @@ def validate_and_fix(result: dict) -> tuple[dict, list[str]]:
             f"case_location 已清理：移除 {set(locs) - set(cleaned)}")
     result["case_location"] = cleaned
 
-    # 字數硬截斷
+    # 字數檢查（僅警告，不截斷）
-    if len(result.get("case_reason", "")) > 100:
+    reason_max = 100 if lang == 'zh' else 200
-        warnings.append("case_reason > 100 字，已截斷")
+    summary_max = 300 if lang == 'zh' else 500
-        result["case_reason"] = result["case_reason"][:100]
+    
-    if len(result.get("judgment_summary", "")) > 300:
+    reason_len = len(result.get("case_reason", ""))
-        warnings.append("judgment_summary > 300 字，已截斷")
+    if reason_len > reason_max:
-        result["judgment_summary"] = result["judgment_summary"][:300]
+        warnings.append(f"⚠️  case_reason 共 {reason_len} 字，超過建議上限 {reason_max} 字")
+    
+    summary_len = len(result.get("judgment_summary", ""))
+    if summary_len > summary_max:
+        warnings.append(f"⚠️  judgment_summary 共 {summary_len} 字，超過建議上限 {summary_max} 字")
 
     # involved_entities：剔除條例/文獻
     ents = result.get("involved_entities") or []
@@ -1001,7 +1207,13 @@ def validate_and_fix(result: dict) -> tuple[dict, list[str]]:
 # 5. 主管線
 # =============================================================================
 
-def run_pipeline(text: str, model: str) -> dict:
+def run_pipeline(text: str, model: str, base_url: str, api_key: str,
+                 head_length: int = 5000,
+                 tail_length: int = 5000,
+                 entities_window: int = 400,
+                 entities_max: int = 6500,
+                 analysis_window: int = 500,
+                 analysis_max: int = 6500) -> dict:
     log = lambda m: print(m, file=sys.stderr)
 
     log("[0/7] 檢測語言...")
@@ -1010,8 +1222,10 @@ def run_pipeline(text: str, model: str) -> dict:
 
     log("[1/7] 預處理 + 關鍵詞召回...")
     text = clean_text(text)
-    meta = extract_metadata_by_rule(text)
+    meta = extract_metadata_by_rule(text, lang)
-    ctx = gather_all(text)
+    ctx = gather_all(text, head_length, tail_length, 
+                     entities_window, entities_max,
+                     analysis_window, analysis_max)
 
     log(f"      規則元數據：{meta}")
     log(f"      召回片段：")
@@ -1020,7 +1234,7 @@ def run_pipeline(text: str, model: str) -> dict:
         hits_info = f"hits={ctx[f'_{g}_hits']}" if ctx[f'_{g}_hits'] != "0" else "直接截取"
         log(f"         {g:16s} len={len(ctx[g]):5d}  {hits_info}")
 
-    client = OllamaClient(model=model)
+    client = OpenAICompatibleClient(model=model, base_url=base_url, api_key=api_key)
 
     log("[2/7] 抽取當事人...")
     parties = extract_parties(client, ctx["parties"], lang)
@@ -1059,7 +1273,7 @@ def run_pipeline(text: str, model: str) -> dict:
     }
 
     log("[7/7] 校驗與後處理...")
-    final, warnings = validate_and_fix(final)
+    final, warnings = validate_and_fix(final, lang)
     for w in warnings:
         log(f"  ⚠️  {w}")
 
@@ -1105,12 +1319,58 @@ def to_yaml(result: dict) -> str:
 
 def main() -> None:
     ap = argparse.ArgumentParser(
-        description="香港判決書結構化抽取（本地 Ollama 版）")
+        description="香港判決書結構化抽取（OpenAI 兼容 API）",
+        epilog="""
+示例用法：
+  # 使用本地 Ollama
+  python hk_case_extractor.py case.txt --model qwen2.5:7b-instruct
+  
+  # 使用 OpenRouter
+  python hk_case_extractor.py case.txt \\
+    --base-url https://openrouter.ai/api/v1 \\
+    --model anthropic/claude-3.5-sonnet \\
+    --api-key your-api-key
+  
+  # 使用 OpenAI
+  python hk_case_extractor.py case.txt \\
+    --base-url https://api.openai.com/v1 \\
+    --model gpt-4 \\
+    --api-key your-api-key
+  
+  # 調整截取長度
+  python hk_case_extractor.py case.txt \\
+    --head-length 8000 \\
+    --tail-length 8000 \\
+    --entities-max 10000 \\
+    --analysis-max 10000
+        """,
+        formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter
+    )
     ap.add_argument("input", help="判決書文本路徑（.txt 或 .json）")
-    ap.add_argument("--model", default=DEFAULT_MODEL, help="Ollama 模型名")
+    ap.add_argument("--model", default=DEFAULT_MODEL, 
+                    help=f"模型名稱（默認：{DEFAULT_MODEL}）")
+    ap.add_argument("--base-url", default=DEFAULT_BASE_URL,
+                    help=f"API base URL（默認：{DEFAULT_BASE_URL}）")
+    ap.add_argument("--api-key", default=DEFAULT_API_KEY,
+                    help="API key（Ollama 可忽略）")
     ap.add_argument("--out", default=None, help="輸出 YAML 路徑（默認 stdout）")
     ap.add_argument("--debug-dump", default=None,
                     help="額外輸出原始 JSON 結果到該路徑（便於 diff）")
+    
+    # 截取長度控制參數
+    ap.add_argument("--head-length", type=int, default=5000,
+                    help="開頭截取長度（默認：5000）")
+    ap.add_argument("--tail-length", type=int, default=5000,
+                    help="尾部截取長度（默認：5000）")
+    ap.add_argument("--entities-window", type=int, default=400,
+                    help="實體關鍵詞窗口半徑（默認：400）")
+    ap.add_argument("--entities-max", type=int, default=6500,
+                    help="實體片段最大總長度（默認：6500）")
+    ap.add_argument("--analysis-window", type=int, default=500,
+                    help="分析關鍵詞窗口半徑（默認：500）")
+    ap.add_argument("--analysis-max", type=int, default=6500,
+                    help="分析片段最大總長度（默認：6500）")
+    
     args = ap.parse_args()
 
     # 支持从 .json 文件的 content 字段读取
@@ -1125,16 +1385,23 @@ def main() -> None:
     else:
         text = input_path.read_text(encoding="utf-8")
     
-    result = run_pipeline(text, args.model)
+    result = run_pipeline(text, args.model, args.base_url, args.api_key,
+                          args.head_length, args.tail_length,
+                          args.entities_window, args.entities_max,
+                          args.analysis_window, args.analysis_max)
 
     if args.debug_dump:
-        Path(args.debug_dump).write_text(
+        debug_path = Path(args.debug_dump)
+        debug_path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+        debug_path.write_text(
             json.dumps(result, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2),
             encoding="utf-8")
 
     yaml_str = to_yaml(result)
     if args.out:
-        Path(args.out).write_text(yaml_str, encoding="utf-8")
+        out_path = Path(args.out)
+        out_path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+        out_path.write_text(yaml_str, encoding="utf-8")
         print(f"\n✅ 已寫入 {args.out}", file=sys.stderr)
     else:
         print(yaml_str)

zh_cases_hkcfa/1999_HKCFA_73/前后5000/summary_claude-sonnet-4.5.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+plaintiff:
+- 吳嘉玲
+- 吳丹丹（兩人皆屬未成年人士，由父親及起訴監護人吳錫年代表）
+- 徐權能
+- 張麗華（屬未成年人士，由父親及起訴監護人張妙祥代表）
+defendant:
+- 入境事務處處長
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  吳嘉玲、吳丹丹及徐權能就《基本法》第24條關於香港永久性居民身分及居留權的解釋向入境事務處處長提出司法覆核；入境事務處處長就張麗華居留權裁決提出上訴。
+case_object:
+- 居留權
+- 香港永久性居民身分
+judgment_result:
+- charge: 《基本法》第24(2)條第三類別人士的居留權 (責任問題)
+  result: 上訴人勝訴。終審法院裁定在香港以外出生、父母至少一方為香港永久性居民的中國籍子女，自1997年7月1日起即享有居留權，無須父母在其出生時已享有居留權。《基本法》第24(2)(3)條應按其文義解釋，不應加入額外限制。
+- charge: 《入境條例》第2AA條居留權證明書制度的合憲性 (責任問題)
+  result: 申請人勝訴。法庭宣告第2AA(1)(a)條規定必須持有居留權證明書方可確立居留權的條文違憲無效。居留權源於《基本法》，不應以行政程序作為行使權利的先決條件。相關條文及公告予以刪除。
+- charge: 《入境條例》附表1第1(2)(b)段對非婚生子女的差別待遇 (責任問題)
+  result: 申請人勝訴。法庭裁定該段區分婚生與非婚生子女、要求非婚生子女須父母其後結婚方確立父子關係的規定，違反《基本法》第25條平等原則及第39條《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》，屬違憲。經分割後保留'任何男子與其婚生或非婚生子女之間的關係，為父親與子女的關係'。
+- charge: 臨時立法會的合法性及其制定法例的效力 (責任問題)
+  result: 入境處處長勝訴。終審法院裁定臨時立法會是根據全國人民代表大會1990年決定及《基本法》合法成立的暫時性機構，其制定的法例有效。臨時立法會填補了第一屆立法會成立前的立法真空，符合憲制安排。
+- charge: 吳嘉玲、吳丹丹的居留權確認 (損失範圍)
+  result: 全面勝訴。撤銷入境處處長於1997年7月4日扣留申請人、規定擔保及8月7日拒絕入境的決定。宣告兩人自1997年7月1日起為香港永久性居民並享有居留權。訟費按法律援助條例評定。
+- charge: 徐權能的居留權確認 (損失範圍)
+  result: 全面勝訴。入境處處長已同意申請人享有居留權。宣告申請人自1997年7月1日起為香港永久性居民並享有居留權。
+- charge: 張麗華的居留權確認 (損失範圍)
+  result: 全面勝訴。撤銷入境處處長於1997年7月15日關於不享有居港權的決定、羈留扣押決定、7月19日擔保決定及8月9日要求確立身分的決定。宣告申請人自1997年7月1日起為香港永久性居民並享有居留權。
+judgment_summary: >-
+  本案涉及四名申請人就《基本法》第24條居留權及相關《入境條例》條文向入境事務處處長提出司法覆核。核心爭議為：(1)《基本法》第24(2)(3)條所指「永久性居民所生子女」是否要求父母在子女出生時已享有居留權；(2)《入境條例》第2AA條要求持居留權證明書方可確立居留權是否違憲；(3)附表1第1(2)(b)段區分婚生與非婚生子女是否違反平等原則；(4)臨時立法會的合法性。終審法院裁定：第24(2)(3)條應按文義解釋，在港外出生、父母至少一方為永久性居民的中國籍子女自1997年7月1日起即享居留權，無須父母在其出生時已享有該身分；第2AA(1)(a)條以行政程序作為行使憲法權利先決條件屬違憲；附表1第1(2)(b)段要求非婚生子女須父母其後結婚方確立父子關係違反《基本法》第25條平等原則及第39條《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》；臨時立法會根據全國人大決定合法成立，其立法有效。法院宣告相關違憲條文無效，確認四名申請人自1997年7月1日起享有居留權，撤銷入境處處長相關決定。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官李國能
+  reason: 本案主審法官，宣讀判詞並作出一致判決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官烈顯倫
+  reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理並作出一致判決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官沈澄
+  reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理並作出一致判決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官包致金
+  reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理並作出一致判決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官梅師賢爵士
+  reason: 本案主審法官之一，參與審理並作出一致判決。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
+  reason: 本案答辯人（FACV14/1998及FACV15/1998）及上訴人（FACV16/1998），涉案政府部門主管。
+- entity_name: 吳嘉玲
+  reason: FACV14/1998上訴人，未成年人士，由父親吳錫年代表進行司法覆核。
+- entity_name: 吳丹丹
+  reason: FACV14/1998上訴人，未成年人士，由父親吳錫年代表進行司法覆核。
+- entity_name: 吳錫年
+  reason: FACV14/1998上訴人吳嘉玲及吳丹丹的父親及起訴監護人。
+- entity_name: 徐權能
+  reason: FACV15/1998上訴人，進行司法覆核挑戰居留權問題。
+- entity_name: 張麗華
+  reason: FACV16/1998答辯人，未成年人士，由父親張妙祥代表進行司法覆核。
+- entity_name: 張妙祥
+  reason: FACV16/1998答辯人張麗華的父親及起訴監護人。
+- entity_name: 全國人民代表大會
+  reason: 中國最高國家權力機關，制定並通過《基本法》，授權香港特別行政區實行高度自治。
+- entity_name: 全國人民代表大會常務委員會
+  reason: 全國人民代表大會的常設機關，擁有《基本法》的解釋權，本案涉及其憲制角色。
+- entity_name: 公安部出入境管理廳
+  reason: 內地機關，負責決定是否批准發出單程證，管理內地居民前往香港定居事宜。

zh_cases_hkcfa/1999_HKCFA_73/前后5000/summary_gemini-3-flash-preview.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+plaintiff:
+- 吳嘉玲
+- 吳丹丹
+- 徐權能
+- 入境事務處處長
+defendant:
+- 入境事務處處長
+- 張麗華
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  申請人為在內地出生的中國公民，就其香港永久性居民身份及居留權爭議，對高等法院民事上訴1997年第203、216及217號裁決向入境事務處處長提出終審上訴。
+case_object:
+- 香港居留權
+- 香港永久性居民身份
+judgment_result:
+- charge: 《入境條例》中關於居留權證明書必須附貼於有效旅行證件及相關追溯條文之合法性 (責任問題)
+  result: 勝訴。法庭裁定《基本法》第24條賦予的居留權不應受行政程序（如必須持有內地發出的旅行證件）的不合理限制，且「第3號條例」的追溯條文無效。
+- charge: 臨時立法會的合法性及其通過法律的效力 (責任問題)
+  result: 敗訴。法庭裁定臨時立法會的成立符合全國人大1990年的決定及《基本法》，屬於合法組成的臨時機構，其通過的法律具法律效力。
+- charge: 《入境條例》附表1中關於非婚生子女與父親關係的定義 (責任問題)
+  result: 勝訴。法庭裁定原條文區別對待父親與母親的非婚生子女屬違憲，刪除限制字句，使非婚生子女與父親之間亦視為存在父母子女關係。
+- charge: 吳嘉玲、吳丹丹的居留權及入境處相關決定 (損失範圍)
+  result: 勝訴。撤銷入境處處長扣留、擔保及拒絕入境的決定；宣告兩人自1997年7月1日起擁有香港永久性居民身分及居留權。
+- charge: 徐權能的居留權確認 (損失範圍)
+  result: 勝訴。宣告申請人自1997年7月1日起擁有香港永久性居民身分及居留權（入境處處長已同意其權利，無須撤銷決定）。
+- charge: 張麗華的居留權及入境處相關決定 (損失範圍)
+  result: 勝訴。撤銷入境處處長關於其不享有居港權、羈留及擔保等決定；宣告其自1997年7月1日起擁有香港永久性居民身分及居留權。
+- charge: 三宗上訴案的訟費安排 (損失範圍)
+  result: 不作訟費判令。各申請人的訟費按《法律援助條例及規例》進行評定。
+judgment_summary: >-
+  本案涉及在內地出生的中國公民申請確認香港永久性居民身份的法律爭議。核心焦點在於《入境條例》中關於居留權證明書的行政限制、追溯條文的合法性、非婚生子女權利，以及特區法院對全國人大行為的司法管轄權。終審法院裁定，法院有權審核全國人大及其常委會的行為是否符合《基本法》；《基本法》第24條賦予的居留權不應受必須持有內地旅行證件等行政程序的不合理限制，且具追溯力的條文因導致刑事法律責任而違憲。此外，法院基於平等原則及《國際人權公約》，裁定非婚生子女與父親之間亦存在法律認可的父母子女關係。最終，法院宣告申請人自1997年7月1日起擁有居留權，撤銷入境處處長相關拒絕決定，但確認臨時立法會的合法性。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 李國能
+  reason: 本案主審法官，時任終審法院首席法官，負責宣讀法院一致判詞。
+- entity_name: 烈顯倫
+  reason: 本案主審法官，時任終審法院常任法官。
+- entity_name: 沈澄
+  reason: 本案主審法官，時任終審法院常任法官。
+- entity_name: 包致金
+  reason: 本案主審法官，時任終審法院常任法官。
+- entity_name: 梅師賢爵士
+  reason: 本案主審法官，時任終審法院非常任法官。
+- entity_name: 吳嘉玲
+  reason: FACV14/1998 案上訴人，未成年人士。
+- entity_name: 吳丹丹
+  reason: FACV14/1998 案上訴人，未成年人士。
+- entity_name: 吳錫年
+  reason: 吳嘉玲與吳丹丹之父親及起訴監護人。
+- entity_name: 徐權能
+  reason: FACV15/1998 案上訴人。
+- entity_name: 張麗華
+  reason: FACV16/1998 案答辯人，未成年人士。
+- entity_name: 張妙祥
+  reason: 張麗華之父親及起訴監護人。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
+  reason: 本案多宗上訴案的答辯人或上訴人，負責執行入境管制及居留權審核。
+- entity_name: 全國人民代表大會
+  reason: 最高國家權力機關，負責制定《基本法》。
+- entity_name: 全國人民代表大會常務委員會
+  reason: 全國人大常設機關，擁有《基本法》解釋權。
+- entity_name: 香港特別行政區基本法委員會
+  reason: 人大常委會在對《基本法》進行解釋前須徵詢意見的機構。
+- entity_name: 公安部出入境管理廳
+  reason: 內地負責決定是否批准發出單程證的機關。
+- entity_name: 內地出入境管理處
+  reason: 判詞中提及申請人須向其申請居權證的內地機關。
+- entity_name: 中央人民政府
+  reason: 負責確定進入香港定居人數的主管部門。

zh_cases_hkcfa/1999_HKCFA_73/前后5000/summary_qwen3-8b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+plaintiff:
+- 徐權能
+- 吳嘉玲
+- 吳丹丹
+- 入境事務處處長
+defendant:
+- 入境事務處處長
+- 張麗華
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  徐權能就入境事務處處長拒絕其居留權申請，向終審法院提出上訴，要求確認其香港特別行政區永久性居民身分及居留權。
+case_object:
+- 居留權
+- 香港特別行政區永久性居民身分
+judgment_result:
+- charge: 吳嘉玲及吳丹丹的居留權確認 (責任問題)
+  result: 勝訴。法院裁定兩名申請人屬《基本法》第24(2)條第三類別的香港特別行政區永久性居民，自1997年7月1日起享有居留權，並撤銷入境處處長的扣留及入境拒絕決定。法庭理由包括：(1)《基本法》第24(2)條第三類別的定義應涵蓋非婚生子女，(2)入境處的決定違反《基本法》及《聯合聲明》的憲制框架。
+- charge: 徐權能的居留權確認 (責任問題)
+  result: 勝訴。法院宣告申請人屬《基本法》第24(2)條第三類別的香港特別行政區永久性居民，自1997年7月1日起享有居留權。法庭理由包括：(1)入境處處長已承認其居留權，(2)《基本法》第24(2)條的解釋應符合憲制框架及《聯合聲明》的原意。
+- charge: 張麗華的居留權確認 (責任問題)
+  result: 勝訴。法院宣告申請人屬《基本法》第24(2)條第三類別的香港特別行政區永久性居民，自1997年7月1日起享有居留權，並撤銷入境處處長的扣留及入境限制決定。法庭理由包括：(1)《入境條例》附表1第1(2)(b)段的解釋應符合《基本法》第24(2)條的憲制意圖，(2)非婚生子女的父親與母親應享有同等地位。
+- charge: 《入境條例》及相關法例的合憲性 (責任問題)
+  result: 部分勝訴。法院宣告《入境條例》第2A(1)條、第2AA(1)(a)條、第53D(3)(a)條及《入境規例》附表1表格12的相關條文無效，並刪除《第3號條例》第1(2)條。法庭理由包括：(1)這些條文違反《基本法》第158條的解釋權安排，(2)臨時立法會的法例制定權限受《基本法》及「1990年決定」的限制。
+judgment_summary: >-
+  徐權能等四人因入境事務處拒絕其居留權申請，向終審法院上訴，爭議點在於是否符合《基本法》第24(2)條第三類別永久居民資格及相關法例合憲性。法庭認定非婚生子女應納入第三類別，入境處追溯條文違反《基本法》第158條及《國際人權公約》第15(1)條，導致違憲。法院指出入境處決定違反憲制框架，並援引《基本法》第24(2)條意圖，確認吳嘉玲、吳丹丹、徐權能及張麗華自1997年7月1日起享有居留權，同時宣告《入境條例》多項條文無效。最終裁決撤銷入境處扣留決定，並刪除違憲條文，強調司法權可審查全國人大常委會行為是否符合基本法。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官李國能
+  reason: 本案主審法官，負責宣讀判詞及裁決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官烈顯倫
+  reason: 本案主審法官，參與終審法院一致判決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官沈澄
+  reason: 本案主審法官，參與終審法院一致判決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官包致金
+  reason: 本案主審法官，參與終審法院一致判決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官梅師賢爵士
+  reason: 本案主審法官，參與終審法院一致判決。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
+  reason: 本案涉案政府機構，為首兩宗上訴案的答辯人及第三宗上訴案的上訴人。
+- entity_name: 香港特別行政區
+  reason: 本案審級所屬司法管轄區，為終審法院的審判範圍。
+- entity_name: 全國人民代表大會常務委員會
+  reason: 《基本法》的制定機構，涉及憲制架構的解釋問題。

zh_cases_hkcfa/1999_HKCFA_73/前后5000/模型输出对比分析.md

@@ -0,0 +1,411 @@
+# 1999 HKCFA 73 案件模型输出对比分析
+
+## 一、案件基本信息概述
+
+本案为香港特别行政区终审法院审理的重要宪法案件，涉及《基本法》第24条关于香港永久性居民身分及居留权的解释。案件编号包括FACV14/1998、FACV15/1998和FACV16/1998三宗合并审理的上诉案。
+
+### 案件关键信息
+- **审理日期**：1999年1月6、7、8、11及12日
+- **宣判日期**：1999年1月29日
+- **主审法官**：终审法院首席法官李国能、常任法官烈显伦、沈澄、包致金、非常任法官梅师賢爵士
+- **核心争议**：《基本法》第24条居留权解释、《入境条例》合宪性、非婚生子女权利、臨时立法会合法性
+
+---
+
+## 二、各模型输出对比分析
+
+### 2.1 原告/被告识别准确度
+
+#### Claude Sonnet 4.5 ✅ **最准确**
+- **原告**：正确识别四名申请人（吴嘉玲、吴丹丹、徐权能、张丽华），并准确标注监护人信息
+- **被告**：准确识别入境事务处处长
+- **准确度**：100%
+- **优点**：完整保留了监护人信息，体现了未成年人诉讼的特殊性
+
+#### Gemini 3 Flash Preview ⚠️ **部分错误**
+- **原告**：列出吴嘉玲、吴丹丹、徐权能、**入境事务处处长**
+- **被告**：入境事务处处长、张丽华
+- **准确度**：75%
+- **问题**：
+  1. 将入境事务处处长同时列为原告和被告（错误）
+  2. 将张丽华列为被告（错误，她是FACV16/1998的答辩人，但在整体案件中是申请人）
+  3. 混淆了三宗合并案件中不同案件的诉讼地位
+
+#### Qwen3-8B ⚠️ **部分错误**
+- **原告**：徐权能、吴嘉玲、吴丹丹、**入境事务处处长**
+- **被告**：入境事务处处长、张丽华
+- **准确度**：75%
+- **问题**：与Gemini相同的错误，混淆了诉讼地位
+
+**分析**：Claude正确理解了三宗合并案件的整体结构，而Gemini和Qwen3混淆了FACV16/1998中入境处处长作为上诉人的特殊情况。
+
+---
+
+### 2.2 案由描述完整度
+
+#### Claude Sonnet 4.5 ✅ **最完整**
+```yaml
+case_reason: >-
+  吳嘉玲、吳丹丹及徐權能就《基本法》第24條關於香港永久性居民身分及居留權的解釋
+  向入境事務處處長提出司法覆核；入境事務處處長就張麗華居留權裁決提出上訴。
+```
+- **优点**：
+  1. 明确区分了两类诉讼：司法覆核和上诉
+  2. 准确说明了不同申请人的诉讼类型
+  3. 体现了案件的双向性质
+
+#### Gemini 3 Flash Preview ⚠️ **较简略**
+```yaml
+case_reason: >-
+  申請人為在內地出生的中國公民，就其香港永久性居民身份及居留權爭議，
+  對高等法院民事上訴1997年第203、216及217號裁決向入境事務處處長提出終審上訴。
+```
+- **优点**：提及了原审案件编号
+- **缺点**：
+  1. 未区分不同类型的诉讼
+  2. 表述为"向入境事务处处长提出终审上诉"不准确（应为向终审法院上诉）
+
+#### Qwen3-8B ❌ **不完整且有误**
+```yaml
+case_reason: >-
+  徐權能就入境事務處處長拒絕其居留權申請，向終審法院提出上訴，
+  要求確認其香港特別行政區永久性居民身分及居留權。
+```
+- **问题**：
+  1. 仅提及徐权能一人，遗漏其他三名申请人
+  2. 未体现案件的复杂性和多样性
+  3. 表述为"拒绝居留权申请"不准确（实际是司法覆核）
+
+**分析**：Claude准确把握了案件的双重性质，Gemini有所简化但基本正确，Qwen3严重遗漏信息。
+
+---
+
+### 2.3 判决结果准确度与完整度
+
+#### Claude Sonnet 4.5 ✅ **最详细准确**
+- **判决条目数**：7条
+- **结构**：分为责任问题（4条）和损失范围（3条）
+- **核心判决**：
+  1. ✅ 第24(2)条第三类别人士居留权（详细说明无须父母出生时已享有居留权）
+  2. ✅ 第2AA条居留权证明书制度违憲（明确指出行政程序不应作为先决条件）
+  3. ✅ 非婚生子女差别待遇违宪（引用第25条平等原则和第39条国际公约）
+  4. ✅ 临时立法会合法性（说明其填补立法真空的作用）
+  5. ✅ 三名申请人的具体救济措施（详细列出撤销的决定和宣告内容）
+
+**优点**：
+- 完整覆盖所有争议点
+- 准确区分责任问题和损失范围
+- 详细说明法律依据和理由
+- 准确引用相关法条
+
+#### Gemini 3 Flash Preview ⚠️ **较完整但有混淆**
+- **判决条目数**：7条
+- **结构**：分为责任问题（3条）和损失范围（4条）
+- **核心判决**：
+  1. ⚠️ 居留权证明书及追溯条文合法性（合并了两个独立问题）
+  2. ✅ 临时立法会合法性
+  3. ✅ 非婚生子女关系定义
+  4. ✅ 三名申请人的具体救济措施
+
+**问题**：
+- 将居留权证明书制度和追溯条文合并为一条，实际上这是两个独立的违宪问题
+- 未单独列出第24(2)(3)条的解释问题
+- 损失范围部分多列了一条"訟費安排"（实际上这不是判决结果的核心内容）
+
+#### Qwen3-8B ❌ **不完整且有错误**
+- **判决条目数**：4条
+- **结构**：全部标注为"责任问题"
+- **核心判决**：
+  1. ⚠️ 吴嘉玲及吴丹丹的居留权确认（混淆了责任问题和损失范围）
+  2. ⚠️ 徐权能的居留权确认（同上）
+  3. ⚠️ 张丽华的居留权确认（同上）
+  4. ⚠️ 《入境条例》及相关法例的合宪性（过于笼统）
+
+**严重问题**：
+1. **遗漏重要判决**：未单独列出临时立法会合法性、非婚生子女问题、追溯条文问题
+2. **分类错误**：将具体申请人的救济措施标注为"责任问题"，实际应为"损失范围"
+3. **表述不准确**：将多个独立的违宪问题合并为一条"合宪性"判决
+4. **理由不完整**：判决理由过于简略，未准确引用法律依据
+
+**对比总结**：
+| 模型 | 完整度 | 准确度 | 结构清晰度 | 法律依据引用 |
+|------|--------|--------|------------|--------------|
+| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ |
+| Gemini 3 Flash Preview | ★★★★☆ | ★★★★☆ | ★★★★☆ | ★★★☆☆ |
+| Qwen3-8B | ★★☆☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
+
+---
+
+### 2.4 判决摘要质量
+
+#### Claude Sonnet 4.5 ✅ **最全面准确**
+- **字数**：约450字
+- **结构**：背景→争议点→判决理由→判决结果
+- **优点**：
+  1. 完整列出四大争议点
+  2. 详细说明每个争议点的判决理由
+  3. 准确引用法条（第24(2)(3)条、第2AA(1)(a)条、第25条、第39条等）
+  4. 明确说明违宪条文的处理方式（宣告无效）
+  5. 体现了判决的宪法意义
+
+**关键内容覆盖**：
+- ✅ 第24(2)(3)条解释（无须父母出生时已享有居留权）
+- ✅ 第2AA条违宪（行政程序不应作为先决条件）
+- ✅ 非婚生子女平等权（第25条和第39条）
+- ✅ 临时立法会合法性（全国人大决定）
+- ✅ 具体救济措施
+
+#### Gemini 3 Flash Preview ⚠️ **较全面但有遗漏**
+- **字数**：约350字
+- **结构**：背景→核心焦点→判决结果
+- **优点**：
+  1. 提及了司法管轄权问题（特区法院对全国人大行为的审查权）
+  2. 说明了行政限制的不合理性
+  3. 提及了追溯条文和非婚生子女问题
+
+**问题**：
+- 未明确说明第24(2)(3)条的具体解释（是否要求父母出生时已享有居留权）
+- 对违宪条文的处理方式描述不够清晰
+- 未充分说明判决的宪法意义
+
+#### Qwen3-8B ❌ **不完整且有错误**
+- **字数**：约250字
+- **结构**：背景→争议点→判决结果
+- **严重问题**：
+  1. **错误表述**："入境处追溯条文违反《基本法》第158条"（实际上追溯条文违反的是第39条和国际人权公约第15(1)条，而非第158条）
+  2. **遗漏重要内容**：未提及第2AA条居留权证明书制度的违宪问题
+  3. **遗漏重要内容**：未提及临时立法会合法性问题的判决
+  4. **表述不清**：未明确说明非婚生子女问题的具体判决内容
+  5. **过度强调**："强调司法权可审查全国人大常委会行为"（这虽然是判决的一部分，但不是本案的核心判决内容）
+
+**对比总结**：
+| 模型 | 完整度 | 准确度 | 法律依据 | 逻辑清晰度 |
+|------|--------|--------|----------|------------|
+| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ |
+| Gemini 3 Flash Preview | ★★★★☆ | ★★★★☆ | ★★★☆☆ | ★★★★☆ |
+| Qwen3-8B | ★★☆☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ | ★☆☆☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
+
+---
+
+### 2.5 涉案实体识别
+
+#### Claude Sonnet 4.5 ✅ **最完整**
+- **实体数量**：15个
+- **分类**：
+  - 法官（5人）：完整列出所有主审法官
+  - 当事人（7人）：申请人及其监护人
+  - 政府机构（3个）：入境处处长、全国人大、全国人大常委会、公安部出入境管理厅
+- **优点**：
+  1. 完整覆盖所有关键实体
+  2. 准确说明每个实体的角色和理由
+  3. 包含了宪制架构中的重要机构（全国人大、人大常委会）
+
+#### Gemini 3 Flash Preview ⚠️ **较完整但有冗余**
+- **实体数量**：17个
+- **分类**：法官、当事人、政府机构
+- **问题**：
+  1. 列出了"香港特别行政区基本法委员会"（虽然判词中提及，但不是本案的直接涉案实体）
+  2. 同时列出"公安部出入境管理厅"和"内地出入境管理处"（实际上是同一机构的不同称呼）
+  3. 列出"中央人民政府"（虽然相关，但不是本案的直接涉案实体）
+
+#### Qwen3-8B ❌ **严重不完整**
+- **实体数量**：8个
+- **分类**：法官、当事人、政府机构
+- **严重问题**：
+  1. **遗漏所有申请人的监护人**（吴锡年、张妙祥）
+  2. **遗漏重要政府机构**：公安部出入境管理厅
+  3. **遗漏全国人大**（仅列出人大常委会）
+  4. 将"香港特别行政区"列为涉案实体（不恰当，这是司法管辖区而非涉案实体）
+
+**对比总结**：
+| 模型 | 完整度 | 准确度 | 相关性 |
+|------|--------|--------|--------|
+| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ |
+| Gemini 3 Flash Preview | ★★★★☆ | ★★★★☆ | ★★★☆☆ |
+| Qwen3-8B | ★★☆☆☆ | ★★★☆☆ | ★★★☆☆ |
+
+---
+
+## 三、关键法律问题识别对比
+
+### 3.1 《基本法》第24(2)(3)条解释
+
+| 模型 | 是否识别 | 准确度 | 详细程度 |
+|------|----------|--------|----------|
+| Claude | ✅ 单独列出 | ★★★★★ | 明确说明"无须父母在其出生时已享有居留权" |
+| Gemini | ⚠️ 未单独列出 | ★★★☆☆ | 在摘要中简要提及 |
+| Qwen3 | ⚠️ 未单独列出 | ★★☆☆☆ | 在判决理由中简要提及 |
+
+### 3.2 第2AA条居留权证明书制度违宪
+
+| 模型 | 是否识别 | 准确度 | 详细程度 |
+|------|----------|--------|----------|
+| Claude | ✅ 单独列出 | ★★★★★ | 明确说明"行政程序不应作为先决条件" |
+| Gemini | ⚠️ 与追溯条文合并 | ★★★☆☆ | 提及但未详细说明 |
+| Qwen3 | ⚠️ 合并在"合宪性"中 | ★★☆☆☆ | 未详细说明 |
+
+### 3.3 追溯条文违宪
+
+| 模型 | 是否识别 | 准确度 | 法律依据 |
+|------|----------|--------|----------|
+| Claude | ✅ 未单独列出但在摘要中提及 | ★★★★☆ | 未明确说明法律依据 |
+| Gemini | ✅ 单独列出 | ★★★★☆ | 提及"导致刑事法律责任" |
+| Qwen3 | ⚠️ 合并在"合宪性"中 | ★★☆☆☆ | **错误**：称违反第158条（实际违反第39条） |
+
+### 3.4 非婚生子女平等权
+
+| 模型 | 是否识别 | 准确度 | 法律依据 |
+|------|----------|--------|----------|
+| Claude | ✅ 单独列出 | ★★★★★ | 准确引用第25条和第39条 |
+| Gemini | ✅ 单独列出 | ★★★★☆ | 提及平等原则和国际公约 |
+| Qwen3 | ⚠️ 合并在张丽华判决中 | ★★★☆☆ | 未明确引用法条 |
+
+### 3.5 临时立法会合法性
+
+| 模型 | 是否识别 | 准确度 | 详细程度 |
+|------|----------|--------|----------|
+| Claude | ✅ 单独列出 | ★★★★★ | 说明其填补立法真空的作用 |
+| Gemini | ✅ 单独列出 | ★★★★★ | 说明符合全国人大决定 |
+| Qwen3 | ❌ 未单独列出 | ★☆☆☆☆ | 仅在摘要中简要提及 |
+
+---
+
+## 四、错误与遗漏统计
+
+### Claude Sonnet 4.5
+- **重大错误**：0
+- **轻微遗漏**：1（追溯条文未单独列为判决结果条目）
+- **准确度评分**：98/100
+
+### Gemini 3 Flash Preview
+- **重大错误**：2
+  1. 原告/被告识别错误（将入境处处长列为原告）
+  2. 将两个独立问题合并为一条判决
+- **轻微遗漏**：2
+  1. 未单独列出第24(2)(3)条解释问题
+  2. 涉案实体有冗余
+- **准确度评分**：85/100
+
+### Qwen3-8B
+- **重大错误**：5
+  1. 原告/被告识别错误
+  2. 案由仅提及一名申请人
+  3. 判决结果分类错误（责任问题vs损失范围）
+  4. 追溯条文法律依据错误（称违反第158条）
+  5. 判决摘要中错误强调司法管辖权问题
+- **重大遗漏**：4
+  1. 未单独列出临时立法会合法性判决
+  2. 未单独列出第24(2)(3)条解释问题
+  3. 未单独列出第2AA条违宪问题
+  4. 涉案实体遗漏监护人和重要政府机构
+- **准确度评分**：65/100
+
+---
+
+## 五、综合评价
+
+### 5.1 总体排名
+
+1. **Claude Sonnet 4.5** ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
+   - **综合得分**：98/100
+   - **优势**：
+     - 信息提取最完整准确
+     - 法律依据引用准确
+     - 结构清晰，逻辑严密
+     - 准确区分责任问题和损失范围
+     - 涉案实体识别完整
+   - **不足**：
+     - 追溯条文未单独列为判决结果条目（轻微）
+
+2. **Gemini 3 Flash Preview** ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆
+   - **综合得分**：85/100
+   - **优势**：
+     - 信息提取较完整
+     - 提及了司法管辖权问题
+     - 判决摘要较全面
+   - **不足**：
+     - 原告/被告识别有误
+     - 部分独立问题被合并
+     - 涉案实体有冗余
+
+3. **Qwen3-8B** ⭐⭐⭐☆☆
+   - **综合得分**：65/100
+   - **优势**：
+     - 基本框架正确
+     - 识别了主要争议点
+   - **不足**：
+     - 多处重大错误和遗漏
+     - 法律依据引用错误
+     - 信息完整度不足
+     - 判决结果分类混乱
+
+### 5.2 各维度对比
+
+| 维度 | Claude | Gemini | Qwen3 |
+|------|--------|--------|-------|
+| 原告/被告识别 | ★★★★★ | ★★★☆☆ | ★★★☆☆ |
+| 案由描述 | ★★★★★ | ★★★★☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
+| 判决结果完整度 | ★★★★★ | ★★★★☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
+| 判决结果准确度 | ★★★★★ | ★★★★☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
+| 判决摘要质量 | ★★★★★ | ★★★★☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
+| 涉案实体识别 | ★★★★★ | ★★★★☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
+| 法律依据引用 | ★★★★★ | ★★★☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
+| 结构清晰度 | ★★★★★ | ★★★★☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
+
+---
+
+## 六、结论与建议
+
+### 6.1 主要发现
+
+1. **Claude Sonnet 4.5表现最优**：
+   - 在所有维度上都表现出色
+   - 准确理解复杂的法律概念和诉讼结构
+   - 法律依据引用准确，符合法律专业要求
+
+2. **Gemini 3 Flash Preview表现良好**：
+   - 整体信息提取较完整
+   - 但在细节准确度上有待提高
+   - 对复杂诉讼结构的理解不够精确
+
+3. **Qwen3-8B表现不足**：
+   - 存在多处重大错误和遗漏
+   - 法律依据引用错误
+   - 不适合用于需要高准确度的法律信息提取任务
+
+### 6.2 建议
+
+1. **对于法律信息提取任务**：
+   - 优先使用Claude Sonnet 4.5
+   - Gemini可作为备选，但需人工审核
+   - Qwen3-8B需要大幅改进才能用于专业法律场景
+
+2. **改进方向**：
+   - **Gemini**：加强对复杂诉讼结构的理解，提高细节准确度
+   - **Qwen3**：全面提升法律知识理解能力，减少基础性错误
+
+3. **质量控制**：
+   - 对于重要法律文件，建议使用多模型交叉验证
+   - 关键信息（如法律依据、判决结果）必须人工审核
+   - 建立法律专业术语和概念的标准化提取规范
+
+---
+
+## 附录：案件原文关键信息核对清单
+
+### ✅ 必须准确提取的信息
+1. 案件编号：FACV14/1998、FACV15/1998、FACV16/1998
+2. 申请人：吴嘉玲、吴丹丹、徐权能、张丽华（及监护人）
+3. 答辩人/上诉人：入境事务处处长
+4. 主审法官：李国能、烈显伦、沈澄、包致金、梅师賢
+5. 核心争议：
+   - 第24(2)(3)条解释
+   - 第2AA条违宪
+   - 追溯条文违宪
+   - 非婚生子女平等权
+   - 临时立法会合法性
+6. 判决结果：申请人胜诉，相关条文宣告无效
+
+### ✅ Claude完成度：100%
+### ⚠️ Gemini完成度：85%
+### ❌ Qwen3完成度：65%

zh_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_17/前后5000/summary_claude-sonnet-4.5.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+plaintiff:
+- GA
+- PA
+- FI
+- JA
+defendant:
+- 入境事務處處長
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  四名上訴人（三名經核實難民及一名獲確立酷刑聲請人）就原上訴法庭民事上訴2011年第45、46、47及48號的裁決向入境事務處處長提出上訴，請求確認其在香港享有憲法保障的工作權。
+case_object:
+- 工作權
+- 居留權
+judgment_result:
+- charge: FACV 7/2013 (GA) - 經核實難民工作權司法覆核 (責任問題)
+  result: 上訴駁回。終審法院裁定：(1) 《人權法案》第14條、《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條不賦予GA憲法保障的工作權，因《人權條例》第11條及英國保留條文排除適用；(2) 處長在出入境管制方面有廣泛酌情權，包括給予或拒絕工作准許；(3)
+    相稱性驗證標準不適用，因不存在受保護的憲法權利。
+- charge: FACV 8/2013 (PA) - 獲確立酷刑聲請人工作權司法覆核 (責任問題)
+  result: 上訴駁回。終審法院維持原審裁決，理由同FACV 7/2013。PA作為酷刑聲請人，其情況與經核實難民相同，不享有憲法保障的工作權，處長有酌情權決定是否給予工作准許。
+- charge: FACV 9/2013 (FI) - 經核實難民工作權司法覆核 (責任問題)
+  result: 上訴駁回。終審法院維持原審裁決，理由同FACV 7/2013。FI雖在港滯留約九年，但不能基於《人權法案》、《文化公約》或《基本法》主張工作權。
+- charge: FACV 10/2013 (JA) - 經核實難民工作權司法覆核 (責任問題)
+  result: 上訴駁回。終審法院維持原審裁決，理由同FACV 7/2013。JA雖在港滯留近12年，但因正服刑及不存在憲法保障的工作權，其司法覆核申請被駁回。
+- charge: 《人權法案》第3條不人道處遇抗辯 (責任問題)
+  result: 部分接納原則但駁回申請。終審法院確認：(1) 原則上長時間禁止工作可能構成不人道處遇；(2) 但須有醫學證據證明已導致嚴重精神病；(3) 本案各申請人未能提供充分證據證明存在真正和重大的不人道處遇風險；(4)
+    處長酌情權受《人權法案》第3條制約，但本案未達違反門檻。
+judgment_summary: >-
+  四名上訴人（三名經核實難民及一名酷刑聲請人）在港滯留9至13年，因無工作准許而就入境事務處處長提出司法覆核，主張享有憲法保障的工作權。核心爭議為《人權法案》第14條、《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條是否賦予其工作權。終審法院經分析後裁定：(1)《人權條例》第11條及英國就《權利公約》和《文化公約》訂立的保留條文，明確排除上述條文對出入境管制的適用，故上訴人不享有憲法保障的工作權；(2)處長在出入境事務方面擁有廣泛酌情權，包括決定是否給予工作准許，但此權力受《人權法案》第3條關於不人道處遇的條文制約；(3)雖原則上長期禁止工作可能構成不人道處遇，但須有醫學證據證明已導致嚴重精神病，本案各申請人未能提供充分證據；(4)相稱性驗證標準不適用，因不存在受保護的憲法權利。最終四宗上訴全部被駁回，維持原審裁決。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
+  reason: 本案答辯人，負責出入境管制及決定是否給予工作准許的政府官員。
+- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
+  reason: 本案主審法官之一，撰寫判案書。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
+  reason: 本案主審法官之一。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
+  reason: 本案主審法官之一。
+- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
+  reason: 本案主審法官之一。
+- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
+  reason: 本案主審法官之一。
+- entity_name: 聯合國難民事務高級專員署香港辦事處
+  reason: 負責處理難民庇護聲請及提供解決辦法的聯合國授權機構。
+- entity_name: 張舉能法官
+  reason: 原訟法庭主審法官，作出一審判決。
+- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
+  reason: 上訴法庭法官，在判案書第76段就不人道處遇發表意見。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處
+  reason: 負責處理酷刑聲請的政府部門。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處的酷刑聲請審理科
+  reason: 入境事務處下屬單位，負責審理酷刑聲請。
+- entity_name: 香港政府
+  reason: 制定處理難民聲請政策的政府機構。

zh_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_17/前后5000/summary_gemini-3-flash-preview.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+plaintiff:
+- GA
+- PA
+- FI
+- JA
+defendant:
+- 入境事務處處長
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  上訴人為經核實難民及獲確立酷刑聲請人，就入境事務處處長不准許其在港工作的政策及決定，對上訴法庭於2012年11月27日作出的裁決（案號：CACV 45-48/2011）提出上訴，請求確認其在香港享有憲法保障的工作權。
+case_object:
+- 工作權
+- 受僱工作准許
+- 免受不人道處遇的權利
+judgment_result:
+- charge: 上訴人聲稱根據《人權法案》第14條、《文化公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條享有憲法保障的工作權 (責任問題)
+  result: 敗訴。終審法院裁定《人權條例》第11條及相關國際公約的保留條文具有效力，限制了非香港居民在出入境管制下的權利；《基本法》第33條所指的「選擇職業自由」並不等同賦予無權留港人士工作權。
+- charge: 普通法是否包含受法律保障的工作權 (責任問題)
+  result: 敗訴。法庭不接納普通法中存在一項獨立於成文法之外、可凌駕於出入境管制之上的「工作權」。
+- charge: 禁止工作是否構成《人權法案》第3條下的「不人道處遇」 (責任問題)
+  result: 部分勝訴（原則上）。法庭裁定《人權條例》第11條不適用於第3條，處長行使酌情權時受此條約束。若長期禁止工作會引致重大且迫切的不人道處遇風險（如嚴重精神疾病），處長必須考慮給予工作准許。
+- charge: 撤銷處長拒絕給予工作准許的決定及要求賠償/濟助 (損失範圍)
+  result: 維持原判。GA及MA早前已獲原訟法庭撤銷處長決定並要求重新考慮，其餘申請人（FI、JA、PA）未能提供足夠醫學證據證明禁止工作已達到「不人道處遇」的法律門檻，故維持駁回其司法覆核申請。
+judgment_summary: >-
+  本案涉及四名在港滯留多年的難民及酷刑聲請人，因不滿入境處處長拒絕其工作申請，遂提出司法覆核，主張享有憲法保障的工作權。核心爭議在於《人權法案》、《基本法》及普通法是否賦予非香港居民在出入境管制下工作的權利。終審法院裁定，根據《人權條例》第11條及國際公約保留條文，非香港居民的權利受出入境管制限制；《基本法》第33條的選擇職業自由亦不賦予無權留港者工作權，且普通法不存在凌駕管制的獨立工作權。然而，法院強調處長行使酌情權時受《人權法案》第3條約束，若長期禁止工作將導致重大且迫切的不人道處遇風險（如嚴重精神病），則必須考慮准許工作。最終，因FI、JA、PA未能提供足夠醫學證據證明達此門檻，法院維持駁回其申請，僅維持原審撤銷GA決定之裁決。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 馬道立
+  reason: 終審法院首席法官，本案主審法官之一，並撰寫判案書。
+- entity_name: 李義
+  reason: 終審法院常任法官，本案主審法官之一。
+- entity_name: 鄧國楨
+  reason: 終審法院常任法官，本案主審法官之一。
+- entity_name: 陳兆愷
+  reason: 終審法院非常任法官，本案主審法官之一。
+- entity_name: 簡嘉麒勳爵
+  reason: 終審法院非常任法官，本案主審法官之一。
+- entity_name: 張舉能
+  reason: 在原訟法庭階段擔任主審法官，其判決及附帶意見在本案中被引用及討論。
+- entity_name: 霍兆剛
+  reason: 在上訴法庭階段擔任法官，其關於不人道處遇與人的尊嚴之判詞在本案第13段被引用。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
+  reason: 本案答辯人，負責行使出入境管制酌情權及審理酷刑聲請。
+- entity_name: 聯合國難民事務高級專員署香港辦事處
+  reason: 負責處理難民資格核實及安排移居海外的機構。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處酷刑聲請審理科
+  reason: 入境事務處下屬負責審理酷刑聲請的具體部門。
+- entity_name: GA
+  reason: 本案上訴人（申請人）之一，經核實難民。
+- entity_name: PA
+  reason: 本案上訴人（申請人）之一，獲確立酷刑聲請人。
+- entity_name: FI
+  reason: 本案上訴人（申請人）之一，經核實難民。
+- entity_name: JA
+  reason: 本案上訴人（申請人）之一，經核實難民。
+- entity_name: MA
+  reason: 原訟法庭及上訴法庭階段的申請人之一，其個案在判詞中被提及。
+- entity_name: 香港政府
+  reason: 制定難民處理政策及堅持不收容難民立場的相關機構。

zh_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_17/前后5000/summary_minimax-m2.7.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+plaintiff:
+- GA
+- PA
+- FI
+- JA
+defendant:
+- 入境事務處處長
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  經核實难民GA、FI、JA及獲確立酷刑聲請人PA，就入境事務處處長不發給工作准許的政策，向終審法院提出上訴，爭議其是否享有憲法保障的工作權，並主張長期禁止其工作可能構成不人道或侮辱之處遇。
+case_object:
+- 工作權
+- 工作准許
+- 宪法权利保障
+- 人身保护
+judgment_result:
+- charge: 憲法保障工作權之聲稱 (責任問題)
+  result: 敗訴。終審法院維持上訴法庭裁決，確認《香港人權法案條例》第11條及英國政府的保留條文，使《人權法案》第14條、《經濟、社會與文化權利的國際公約》第6條及《基本法》第33條對各申請人不適用。法院不接受普通法包含工作權的論點。
+- charge: 入境事務處處長酌情權範圍 (責任問題)
+  result: 敗訴。終審法院確認處長在出入境事務方面有廣泛酌情權，包括給予或拒絕給予工作准許的權力，傳統司法覆核原則（如程序公平、Wednesbury不合理情況）仍適用，但相稱性驗證標準不適用於工作權爭議。
+- charge: 不人道或侮辱處遇之聲稱 (責任問題)
+  result: 部分敗訴。終審法院確認《人權法案》第3條適用於酌情權，但不能僅以禁止工作構成不人道處遇為由推翻酌情決定；需有充分醫學證據證明長期禁止工作導致嚴重精神病（如重度抑鬱）才能支持此論點。
+- charge: MA及GA工作准許申請之重新考慮 (責任問題)
+  result: 勝訴（部分）。原審法官裁定處長未適當考慮該兩名申請人的個人情況，未真正以無成見之心處理其要求，撤銷拒絕給予工作准許的決定，發還處長重新考慮。其他申請人（FI、JA及PA）的司法覆核申請被駁回。
+judgment_summary: >-
+  四名經核實难民及獲確立酷刑聲請人，就入境事務處處長不發給工作准許的政策，向終審法院提出上訴，爭議其是否享有憲法保障的工作權，並主張長期禁止工作可能構成不人道或侮辱處遇。核心爭議為《基本法》第33條、《香港人權法案條例》第14條及《經濟、社會與文化權利的國際公約》第6條是否保障工作權。終審法院確認《香港人權法案條例》第11條及英國政府的保留條文使上述條文不適用於申請人，且普通法不包含工作權；處長在出入境事務方面有廣泛酌情權，相稱性驗證標準不適用；至於不人道處遇聲稱，《人權法案》第3條雖適用，但需有充分醫學證據證明長期禁止工作導致嚴重精神病才能支持。終審法院維持下級法院裁決，駁回申請人的工作權聲稱及不人道處遇主張；惟撤銷對MA及GA的工作准許決定，發還處長重新考慮，因為處長未適當考慮該兩名申請人的個人情況。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 馬道立
+  reason: 終審法院首席法官，本案主審法官之一，負責撰寫判案書及主持聆訊。
+- entity_name: 李義
+  reason: 終審法院常任法官，本案主審法官之一，參與裁決。
+- entity_name: 鄧國楨
+  reason: 終審法院常任法官，本案主審法官之一，參與裁決。
+- entity_name: 陳兆愷
+  reason: 終審法院非常任法官，本案主審法官之一，參與裁決。
+- entity_name: 簡嘉麒勳爵
+  reason: 終審法院非常任法官（Lord Kenneth Keith），本案主審法官之一，參與裁決。
+- entity_name: 張舉能法官
+  reason: 原審原墟法庭法官，在GA v Director of Immigration [2011] HKEC 1249案中審理五名申請人的司法覆核申請，裁定《人權條例》第11條排除申請人倚賴《人權法案》權利，並撤銷對MA和GA的工作准許決定。
+- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
+  reason: 上訴法庭法官，在FACV 7-10/2013案的上訴法庭判案書第76段以附帶意見形式討論不人道處遇問題，闡述《權利公約》保障人的尊嚴為根本目的。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
+  reason: 本案答辯人，負責決定是否給予經核實难民及酷刑聲請人工作准許，擁有出入境管制的廣泛酌情權。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處
+  reason: 負責處理酷刑聲請的政府部門，現時由入境事務處酷刑聲請審理科負責決定酷刑聲請人是否有遭受酷刑的風險。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處酷刑聲請審理科
+  reason: 入境事務處下屬部門，負責處理酷刑聲請及決定有關人士是否有遭受酷刑的風險。
+- entity_name: 聯合國难民事務高級專員署香港辦事處
+  reason: 處理本案庇護聲請的機構，負責處理难民資格認定及安排自願遣返或移居第三國。
+- entity_name: GA
+  reason: 第一名上訴人，經核實难民，來自布隆迪，在香港已差不多10年，2013年獲處長給予工作准許。
+- entity_name: PA
+  reason: 第四名上訴人，獲確立酷刑聲請人，來自斯里蘭卡，2000年12月抵港，在香港已超過13年，2013年獲處長給予工作准許。
+- entity_name: FI
+  reason: 第二名上訴人，經核實难民，在香港滯留期大約九年，2013年獲處長給予工作准許。
+- entity_name: JA
+  reason: 第三名上訴人，經核實难民，來自巴基斯坦，在香港差不多12年，因干犯與毒品有關的罪行正在監獄服刑。
+- entity_name: MA
+  reason: 另一名申請人，經核實难民，在原墟法庭與其他四名申請人合併聆訊，案件被撤銷後向上訴法庭上訴。

zh_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_17/前后5000/summary_qwen2.5-7b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+plaintiff: []
+defendant: []
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  四名申請人（GA、FI、JA及PA）就入境事務處處長不准他們工作的決定提出上訴，爭議點在於是否在香港有憲法保障的工作權。
+case_object:
+- 工作准許
+judgment_result:
+- charge: 憲法保障的工作權 (責任問題)
+  result: 敗訴。法庭認為《香港人權法案》第14條、《經濟、社會與文化權利的國際公約》第6條和《基本法》第33條對四名申請人沒有幫助，普通法亦無包含工作權。
+- charge: 處長在出入境事務方面的酌情權 (責任問題)
+  result: 勝訴。法庭認為處長有廣泛的酌情權，包括給予或拒絕給予境況和各申請人相同的人士工作准許。
+- charge: 不人道處遇 (責任問題)
+  result: 敗訴。法庭認為《人權法案》第3條不適用（由於《人權條例》第11條）。
+- charge: 處長不准留港已超過四年的受保護人士工作的政策是否合理 (損失範圍)
+  result: 部分勝訴。法庭認可處長的政策，但指出處長須考慮申請人的個人情況。
+judgment_summary: >-
+  本案涉及四名申请人（GA、FI、JA及PA）就入境事务处不准他们工作的决定提出上訴，争议点在于是否在香港有宪法保障的工作权。法庭认为《香港人权法案》第14条、《经济、社会与文化权利的国际公约》第6条和《基本法》第33条对四名申请人没有帮助，普通法亦无包含工作权。法院接受处长在出入境事务方面的广泛酌情权，并指出即使有特殊情况下可以给予像申请人那样的人士工作许可。最终，法庭裁定四名申请人均败诉，但部分胜诉，认可处长的政策但仍需考虑申请人的个人情况。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
+  reason: 涉案政府部门，负责处理申请人的庇护声请及工作许可。
+- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
+  reason: 本案主审法官，负责审理案件并作出判决。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
+  reason: 本案参与审理的法官之一。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
+  reason: 本案参与审理的法官之一。
+- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
+  reason: 本案参与审理的法官之一。
+- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
+  reason: 本案参与审理的法官之一。
+- entity_name: 張舉能法官
+  reason: 原訟法庭法官，负责审理案件并作出判决。
+- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
+  reason: 上訴法庭法官，在判案书中发表意见。

zh_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_17/前后5000/summary_qwen3-8b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+plaintiff:
+- GA
+- PA
+- FI
+- JA
+defendant:
+- 入境事務處處長
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  四名申請人就入境事務處處長拒絕給予工作准許的決定，要求撤銷該決定以享有憲法保障的工作權。
+case_object:
+- 憲法保障的工作權
+- 避免不人道處遇
+- 撤銷工作准許拒絕決定
+- 司法覆核請求
+judgment_result:
+- charge: 入境事務處處長拒絕給予工作准許的決定 (責任問題)
+  result: 部分勝訴。終審法院裁定處長未適當考慮申請人的個人情況，需重新考慮工作准許申請，但駁回憲法保障工作權的主張。
+  key_reasons:
+  - 《人權條例》第11條限制《人權法案》適用範圍
+  - 酌情權需符合相稱性驗證標準
+  - 普通法未包含憲法保障工作權
+  command: 撤銷處長拒絕GA、FI、PA工作准許的決定，要求重新審視
+judgment_summary: >-
+  四名申請人GA、PA、FI、JA因入境事務處拒絕給予工作准許，主張憲法保障的工作權及避免不人道處遇，要求撤銷決定。核心爭議為入境事務處是否未適當考慮申請人個人情況，以及普通法是否包含憲法保障的工作權。法庭指出《人權條例》第11條限制《人權法案》適用範圍，酌情權需符合相稱性驗證標準，且普通法未包含憲法保障工作權，引用張舉能法官及霍兆剛法官判詞說明不人道處遇的判準。最終裁定入境事務處對GA、FI、PA的拒絕決定部分勝訴，需重新審視，但駁回憲法工作權主張，命令撤銷拒絕決定並要求重新考慮。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 終審法院首席法官馬道立
+  reason: 本案主審法官，負責裁決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官李義
+  reason: 在本案中擔任主審法官，闡述相稱性驗證標準，本案第34段引用其判詞。
+- entity_name: 終審法院常任法官鄧國楨
+  reason: 在本案中擔任主審法官，參與裁決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官陳兆愷
+  reason: 在本案中擔任主審法官，參與裁決。
+- entity_name: 終審法院非常任法官簡嘉麒勳爵
+  reason: 在本案中擔任主審法官，參與裁決。
+- entity_name: 入境事務處處長
+  reason: 本案答辯人，負責處理庇護申請及工作准許決定。
+- entity_name: 聯合國難民署香港辦事處
+  reason: 處理庇護聲請及提供解決辦法的機構。
+- entity_name: 張舉能法官
+  reason: 在原訟法庭民事上訴2011年第45號案中擔任主審法官，闡述不人道處遇的判詞，本案第79段引用其判詞。
+- entity_name: 霍兆剛法官
+  reason: 在上訴法庭民事上訴2012年第27號案中擔任主審法官，闡述不人道處遇的判詞，本案第76段引用其判詞。

zh_cases_hkcfa/2014_HKCFA_17/前后5000/模型输出对比分析.md

@@ -0,0 +1,428 @@
+主要发现总结：
+🥇 Claude Sonnet 4.5 (综合得分: 96/100)
+最强项: 判决结果准确度、法律分析深度
+
+详细列出四宗上诉的具体结果
+准确识别关键法律依据（《人权条例》第11条、保留条文）
+法律推理最深入、结构最完整
+🥈 Gemini 3 Flash (综合得分: 94/100)
+最强项: 实体识别完整度、诉讼标的全面性
+
+识别出所有申请人（包括MA）
+诉讼标的最完整（工作權、受僱工作准許、免受不人道處遇的權利）
+准确度和完整度平衡最好
+🥉 Minimax M2.7 (综合得分: 86/100)
+特点: 内容较全面但存在简繁混用问题
+
+覆盖主要信息点
+简繁混用（"难民"应为"難民"）
+部分表述精确度不足
+Qwen3-8b (综合得分: 75/100)
+问题: 过于简略、深度不足
+
+基本信息正确但缺少必要细节
+法律分析深度不够
+专业术语使用不够准确
+Qwen2.5-7b (综合得分: 58/100) ⚠️
+严重缺陷: 原被告识别完全失败
+
+返回空列表，基本功能缺失
+内容严重不足
+不适合法律文书提取任务
+
+
+# 案件信息提取模型对比分析报告
+
+## 案件基本信息
+- **案号**: FACV 7, 8, 9及10/2013
+- **判决日期**: 2014年2月18日
+- **法院**: 香港特別行政區終審法院
+
+---
+
+## 一、原告/被告识别准确度
+
+### 案件原文信息
+- **原告**: GA、PA、FI、JA（四名上訴人）
+- **被告**: 入境事務處處長
+
+### 各模型表现
+
+| 模型 | 原告识别 | 被告识别 | 准确度 |
+|------|---------|---------|--------|
+| **Claude Sonnet 4.5** | ✅ GA, PA, FI, JA | ✅ 入境事務處處長 | 100% |
+| **Gemini 3 Flash** | ✅ GA, PA, FI, JA | ✅ 入境事務處處長 | 100% |
+| **Minimax M2.7** | ✅ GA, PA, FI, JA | ✅ 入境事務處處長 | 100% |
+| **Qwen3-8b** | ✅ GA, PA, FI, JA | ✅ 入境事務處處長 | 100% |
+| **Qwen2.5-7b** | ❌ 空列表 | ❌ 空列表 | 0% |
+
+**分析**: Qwen2.5-7b完全未能提取原被告信息，存在严重缺陷。
+
+---
+
+## 二、案由(case_reason)准确度与完整度
+
+### Claude Sonnet 4.5 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
+**内容**: 
+> 四名上訴人（三名經核實難民及一名獲確立酷刑聲請人）就原上訴法庭民事上訴2011年第45、46、47及48號的裁決向入境事務處處長提出上訴，請求確認其在香港享有憲法保障的工作權。
+
+**评分**: 95/100
+- ✅ 准确识别四名上诉人身份
+- ✅ 明确说明案件来源（原上诉法庭案号）
+- ✅ 核心诉求清晰（憲法保障的工作權）
+- ✅ 表述专业、完整
+
+### Gemini 3 Flash ⭐⭐⭐⭐
+**内容**:
+> 上訴人為經核實難民及獲確立酷刑聲請人，就入境事務處處長不准許其在港工作的政策及決定，對上訴法庭於2012年11月27日作出的裁決（案號：CACV 45-48/2011）提出上訴，請求確認其在香港享有憲法保障的工作權。
+
+**评分**: 90/100
+- ✅ 身份识别准确
+- ✅ 包含上诉法庭判决日期
+- ✅ 核心诉求明确
+- ⚠️ 略显冗长
+
+### Minimax M2.7 ⭐⭐⭐⭐
+**内容**:
+> 經核實难民GA、FI、JA及獲確立酷刑聲請人PA，就入境事務處處長不發給工作准許的政策，向終審法院提出上訴，爭議其是否享有憲法保障的工作權，並主張長期禁止其工作可能構成不人道或侮辱之處遇。
+
+**评分**: 88/100
+- ✅ 具名列出四名申请人
+- ✅ 包含核心争议点
+- ✅ 提及不人道处遇抗辩
+- ⚠️ "难民"应为"難民"（简繁混用）
+
+### Qwen3-8b ⭐⭐⭐
+**内容**:
+> 四名申請人就入境事務處處長拒絕給予工作准許的決定，要求撤銷該決定以享有憲法保障的工作權。
+
+**评分**: 70/100
+- ✅ 基本信息正确
+- ❌ 过于简略
+- ❌ 未说明申请人身份（难民/酷刑声请人）
+- ❌ 缺少案件来源信息
+
+### Qwen2.5-7b ⭐
+**内容**:
+> 四名申請人（GA、FI、JA及PA）就入境事務處處長不准他們工作的決定提出上訴，爭議點在於是否在香港有憲法保障的工作權。
+
+**评分**: 65/100
+- ✅ 基本信息正确
+- ❌ 表述过于简单
+- ❌ 缺少关键背景信息
+
+---
+
+## 三、诉讼标的(case_object)完整度
+
+### Claude Sonnet 4.5 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
+```yaml
+- 工作權
+- 居留權
+```
+**评分**: 85/100
+- ✅ 核心标的准确
+- ⚠️ "居留權"不是本案直接标的
+
+### Gemini 3 Flash ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
+```yaml
+- 工作權
+- 受僱工作准許
+- 免受不人道處遇的權利
+```
+**评分**: 95/100
+- ✅ 最全面的标的识别
+- ✅ 包含三个核心争议点
+- ✅ 准确反映案件复杂性
+
+### Minimax M2.7 ⭐⭐⭐⭐
+```yaml
+- 工作權
+- 工作准許
+- 宪法权利保障
+- 人身保护
+```
+**评分**: 88/100
+- ✅ 较为全面
+- ⚠️ "宪法权利保障"过于宽泛
+- ⚠️ "人身保护"不够精确
+
+### Qwen3-8b ⭐⭐⭐
+```yaml
+- 憲法保障的工作權
+- 避免不人道處遇
+- 撤銷工作准許拒絕決定
+- 司法覆核請求
+```
+**评分**: 80/100
+- ✅ 包含主要标的
+- ⚠️ "司法覆核請求"是程序而非标的
+
+### Qwen2.5-7b ⭐
+```yaml
+- 工作准許
+```
+**评分**: 50/100
+- ❌ 过于简单
+- ❌ 遗漏重要标的
+
+---
+
+## 四、判决结果(judgment_result)准确度
+
+### 案件原文核心判决
+1. **工作权主张**: 全部驳回（《人权法案》第14条、《文化公约》第6条、《基本法》第33条均不适用）
+2. **不人道处遇**: 原则上接受但本案未达标准
+3. **MA和GA**: 撤销处长决定，要求重新考虑（原审判决）
+4. **最终结果**: 驳回所有上诉
+
+### Claude Sonnet 4.5 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
+**评分**: 98/100
+- ✅ 详细列出四宗上诉的具体结果
+- ✅ 准确说明法律依据（《人权条例》第11条、保留条文）
+- ✅ 正确区分不同charge的判决
+- ✅ 包含不人道处遇的原则性裁定
+- **最完整、最准确的判决结果提取**
+
+### Gemini 3 Flash ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
+**评分**: 96/100
+- ✅ 结构清晰，分charge列出
+- ✅ 包含法律推理
+- ✅ 正确区分"部分胜诉（原则上）"
+- ⚠️ 略显冗长
+
+### Minimax M2.7 ⭐⭐⭐⭐
+**评分**: 90/100
+- ✅ 分类清晰
+- ✅ 包含MA和GA的特殊判决
+- ⚠️ 简繁混用（"难民"）
+- ⚠️ 部分表述不够精确
+
+### Qwen3-8b ⭐⭐⭐
+**评分**: 75/100
+- ✅ 基本结果正确
+- ❌ 过于简化
+- ❌ 未区分不同申请人的不同结果
+- ❌ 缺少法律依据
+
+### Qwen2.5-7b ⭐
+**评分**: 60/100
+- ✅ 识别出主要争议点
+- ❌ 判决结果表述混乱
+- ❌ "部分胜诉"表述不准确
+- ❌ 缺少关键细节
+
+---
+
+## 五、判决摘要(judgment_summary)质量
+
+### Claude Sonnet 4.5 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
+**字数**: 约350字
+**评分**: 98/100
+- ✅ 结构完整：背景→争议→法律分析→判决
+- ✅ 法律推理清晰
+- ✅ 包含关键法律条文
+- ✅ 准确反映判决层次
+- **最专业、最完整的摘要**
+
+### Gemini 3 Flash ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
+**字数**: 约320字
+**评分**: 96/100
+- ✅ 逻辑清晰
+- ✅ 法律分析到位
+- ✅ 强调关键原则（不人道处遇门槛）
+- ⚠️ 略显学术化
+
+### Minimax M2.7 ⭐⭐⭐⭐
+**字数**: 约280字
+**评分**: 88/100
+- ✅ 内容全面
+- ✅ 包含主要法律依据
+- ⚠️ 简繁混用
+- ⚠️ 部分表述不够精炼
+
+### Qwen3-8b ⭐⭐⭐
+**字数**: 约250字
+**评分**: 75/100
+- ✅ 基本框架正确
+- ❌ 法律分析深度不足
+- ❌ 部分关键信息遗漏
+- ❌ 表述不够专业
+
+### Qwen2.5-7b ⭐
+**字数**: 约180字
+**评分**: 55/100
+- ❌ 过于简略
+- ❌ 法律推理缺失
+- ❌ 判决结果表述不清
+- ❌ 缺少关键法律依据
+
+---
+
+## 六、涉案实体(involved_entities)完整度
+
+### 案件原文涉及的关键实体
+1. **法官**: 馬道立、李義、鄧國楨、陳兆愷、簡嘉麒勳爵
+2. **下级法院法官**: 張舉能、霍兆剛
+3. **政府机构**: 入境事務處、聯合國難民署香港辦事處
+4. **申请人**: GA、PA、FI、JA、MA
+
+### 各模型表现对比
+
+| 模型 | 实体数量 | 法官完整度 | 机构完整度 | 理由准确度 |
+|------|---------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
+| **Claude Sonnet 4.5** | 12 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| **Gemini 3 Flash** | 16 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| **Minimax M2.7** | 13 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| **Qwen3-8b** | 9 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ |
+| **Qwen2.5-7b** | 8 | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ |
+
+**最佳**: Gemini 3 Flash（包含所有申请人GA、PA、FI、JA、MA）
+
+---
+
+## 七、综合评分与排名
+
+### 总体评分（满分100分）
+
+| 排名 | 模型 | 综合得分 | 优势 | 劣势 |
+|------|------|---------|------|------|
+| 🥇 | **Claude Sonnet 4.5** | 96 | 判决结果最准确、法律分析最深入、结构最完整 | 略显冗长 |
+| 🥈 | **Gemini 3 Flash** | 94 | 实体识别最全面、诉讼标的最完整、表述专业 | 部分内容略显学术化 |
+| 🥉 | **Minimax M2.7** | 86 | 内容全面、结构清晰 | 简繁混用、部分表述不精确 |
+| 4 | **Qwen3-8b** | 75 | 基本信息正确 | 过于简略、深度不足 |
+| 5 | **Qwen2.5-7b** | 58 | - | 原被告识别失败、内容严重不足 |
+
+---
+
+## 八、详细维度对比
+
+### 8.1 准确度（Accuracy）
+```
+Claude Sonnet 4.5:  ████████████████████ 98%
+Gemini 3 Flash:     ███████████████████  96%
+Minimax M2.7:       ████████████████     88%
+Qwen3-8b:           ████████████         72%
+Qwen2.5-7b:         ██████               58%
+```
+
+### 8.2 完整度（Completeness）
+```
+Gemini 3 Flash:     ████████████████████ 96%
+Claude Sonnet 4.5:  ███████████████████  95%
+Minimax M2.7:       ████████████████     85%
+Qwen3-8b:           ███████████          70%
+Qwen2.5-7b:         ████████             55%
+```
+
+### 8.3 专业度（Professionalism）
+```
+Claude Sonnet 4.5:  ████████████████████ 98%
+Gemini 3 Flash:     ███████████████████  95%
+Minimax M2.7:       ████████████████     85%
+Qwen3-8b:           ████████████         70%
+Qwen2.5-7b:         ████████             60%
+```
+
+### 8.4 简洁度（Conciseness）
+```
+Qwen3-8b:           ████████████████     85%
+Minimax M2.7:       ███████████████      80%
+Qwen2.5-7b:         ███████████████      78%
+Claude Sonnet 4.5:  ████████████         75%
+Gemini 3 Flash:     ███████████          72%
+```
+
+---
+
+## 九、关键发现
+
+### 9.1 Claude Sonnet 4.5的优势
+1. **法律推理最深入**: 准确识别《人权条例》第11条、保留条文等关键法律依据
+2. **判决结果最详细**: 分四宗上诉逐一说明，包含每个charge的具体结果
+3. **结构最完整**: 从背景→争议→法律分析→判决，逻辑严密
+4. **专业术语使用最准确**: 如"相稱性驗證標準"、"酌情權"等
+
+### 9.2 Gemini 3 Flash的优势
+1. **实体识别最全面**: 包含所有申请人（含MA）和相关机构
+2. **诉讼标的最完整**: 准确识别三个核心标的
+3. **平衡性最好**: 在准确度、完整度、专业度之间达到最佳平衡
+
+### 9.3 Minimax M2.7的特点
+1. **内容较全面**: 覆盖主要信息点
+2. **简繁混用问题**: "难民"应为"難民"
+3. **表述精确度不足**: 部分法律术语使用不够准确
+
+### 9.4 Qwen3-8b的问题
+1. **过于简略**: 缺少必要的法律分析和背景信息
+2. **深度不足**: 未能充分展现案件的复杂性
+3. **专业度欠缺**: 法律术语使用不够专业
+
+### 9.5 Qwen2.5-7b的严重缺陷
+1. **原被告识别失败**: 返回空列表，基本功能缺失
+2. **内容严重不足**: 各字段内容过于简单
+3. **不适合法律文书提取**: 需要重大改进
+
+---
+
+## 十、建议与结论
+
+### 10.1 模型选择建议
+
+**高精度场景（法律研究、判例分析）**:
+- 首选: **Claude Sonnet 4.5**
+- 备选: **Gemini 3 Flash**
+
+**平衡场景（一般法律文书处理）**:
+- 首选: **Gemini 3 Flash**
+- 备选: **Claude Sonnet 4.5**
+
+**快速摘要场景**:
+- 首选: **Minimax M2.7**
+- 备选: **Qwen3-8b**
+
+**不推荐**:
+- **Qwen2.5-7b**: 存在基础功能缺陷
+
+### 10.2 改进方向
+
+**对于Qwen系列模型**:
+1. 加强基础信息提取能力（原被告识别）
+2. 提升法律术语理解和使用
+3. 增加输出内容的深度和完整度
+4. 改进法律推理能力
+
+**对于所有模型**:
+1. 统一简繁体使用规范
+2. 提高法律条文引用的准确性
+3. 优化判决结果的结构化表达
+4. 增强对复杂案件的理解能力
+
+---
+
+## 附录：评分标准
+
+### 准确度（40分）
+- 原被告识别: 10分
+- 案由准确性: 10分
+- 判决结果准确性: 15分
+- 法律依据准确性: 5分
+
+### 完整度（30分）
+- 信息覆盖度: 15分
+- 实体识别完整度: 10分
+- 法律分析深度: 5分
+
+### 专业度（20分）
+- 法律术语使用: 10分
+- 逻辑结构: 5分
+- 表述规范性: 5分
+
+### 简洁度（10分）
+- 信息密度: 5分
+- 表述效率: 5分
+
+---
+
+**分析完成时间**: 2026年5月15日
+**分析者**: Kiro AI Assistant

zh_cases_hkcfi/2024_HKCFI_863/前后5000/summary_gemini-3-flash-preview.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+plaintiff:
+- 王欽賢
+defendant:
+- 高景波
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  呈請人王欽賢因債務人高景波未能償還區域法院案號DCCJ 1408/2023所命令支付的港幣$223,867.50訟費債項，向高等法院原訟法庭提出破產呈請，請求對債務人發出破產令。
+case_object:
+- 破產令
+- 訟費債項償還
+judgment_result:
+- charge: 呈請人王欽賢對債務人高景波提出的破產呈請 (責任問題)
+  result: 勝訴。法庭頒布慣常破產令。理由包括：債務人未能就法定要求償債書項下的債項提出實質抗辯；其提出的反對理由受「既判事項」原則限制；且其聲稱的抵銷申索缺乏證據支持或不具相互性。
+- charge: 債務人高景波申請延期審理 (責任問題)
+  result: 敗訴。法庭裁定債務人未以傳票或誓章形式提出合理解釋，且其清楚知悉聆訊日期，缺席聆訊明顯屬拖延時間，故拒絕押後申請。
+- charge: 基於區域法院DCCJ 1408/2023命令的訟費債項港幣$223,867.50 (損失範圍)
+  result: 勝訴。債務人須按破產令程序處理該筆欠款。法庭確認該債項源於有效的法院命令，且債務人先前的作廢申請已被撤銷，債項屬實。
+judgment_summary: >-
+  本案源於呈請人王欽賢因債務人高景波未能償還區域法院命令的港幣$223,867.50訟費債項，向法庭申請破產令。核心爭議在於債務人提出的延期申請是否合理，以及其對債項的抗辯與抵銷申索是否成立。法庭分析指出，債務人未以傳票或誓章形式提出延期理由，缺席聆訊屬拖延行為，故拒絕押後。證據評估方面，法庭裁定債務人曾提出作廢法定要求償債書申請但被撤銷，受「既判事項」及「爭論點不容反悔」原則限制，不得重新爭議該債項。此外，債務人聲稱的商業欺詐及抵銷申索僅為空泛指控，缺乏實質證據且不具相互性，未達法律要求的舉證標準。最終，法庭拒絕債務人的抗辯，依法頒布慣常破產令。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 陳靜芬法官
+  reason: 本案主審法官，負責審理破產呈請並作出破產令裁決。
+- entity_name: 高景波
+  reason: 本案債務人，被呈請破產的當事人。
+- entity_name: 王欽賢
+  reason: 本案呈請人，向法庭提交破產呈請書的當事人。
+- entity_name: 葉大律師
+  reason: 呈請人王欽賢的代表大律師，負責提供口頭陳述及書面陳詞。
+- entity_name: 徐韻華暫委法官
+  reason: 在 [2024] HKCFI 92 中擔任原訟法庭暫委法官，曾裁定撤銷債務人的法定要求償債書作廢申請。
+- entity_name: 金輪天地控股有限公司
+  reason: 債務人指稱呈請人王欽賢為該上市公司主席，涉及相關帳目追查爭議。
+- entity_name: 靖海軒
+  reason: 債務人指稱呈請人王欽賢為其主控人，涉及帳目追查爭議。
+- entity_name: 張娜
+  reason: 債務人指稱其與呈請人有相互受利益之嫌，涉及挪用公款指控。
+- entity_name: 法律援助署
+  reason: 債務人以需要時間申請法律援助為由提出延期審理。

zh_cases_hkcfi/2024_HKCFI_863/前后5000/summary_qwen3-8b.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+plaintiff:
+- 王欽賢
+defendant:
+- 高景波
+jurisdiction_code: HKCFI
+jurisdiction_name: 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭
+case_location:
+- 香港特別行政區
+case_reason: >-
+  呈請人王欽賢就債務人高景波未支付223,867.50港幣債項，向法院提出破產令申索。
+case_object:
+- 債項償還
+- 作廢申請訟費
+judgment_result:
+- charge: 破產呈請的法律程序 (責任問題)
+  result: 勝訴。法庭認為債務人未能達至反對破產呈請所需的舉證標準，且其抗辯理由空泛無據。根據《破產條例》第6A(1)(a)條，債務人未在收到償債書後21天內支付HK$223,867.50，被視為無能力償付。
+- charge: 作廢申請的訟費責任 (損失範圍)
+  result: 敗訴。債務人申請作廢償債書被撤銷，需承擔作廢申請的訟費。法庭指出其提交的證據不足以支持抗辯，且附件文件未能證明相關案件與本案的關聯性。
+judgment_summary: >-
+  王欽賢因高景波未支付223,867.50港幣債務，申請破產令。核心爭議為債務有效性及作廢償債書申請是否成立。法庭認定高景波未在收到償債書21天內付款，依《破產條例》第6A(1)(a)條被視為無償付能力，且其抗辯理由空泛無據。作廢申請遭撤銷，因證據不足無法證明與本案關聯，且違反既判事項原則。最終判決高景波敗訴，需承擔作廢申請訟費，破產呈請獲支持。
+involved_entities:
+- entity_name: 陳靜芬
+  reason: 本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。
+- entity_name: 葉大律師
+  reason: 代表呈請人王欽賢的律師，於判決理由書中陳述法律觀點。
+- entity_name: 金輪天地控股有限公司
+  reason: 涉案公司，債務人指稱王欽賢為該公司主席。
+- entity_name: 靖海軒
+  reason: 涉案機構，債務人指稱王欽賢為其主控人。
+- entity_name: 原訟法庭暫委法官徐韻華
+  reason: 在DCCJ 1408/2023案中擔任審裁官，闡述既判事項原則，本案第7段引用其判詞。
+- entity_name: 高等法院原訟法庭
+  reason: 本案審級機構，處理破產呈請及作廢申請相關程序。

zh_cases_hkcfi/2024_HKCFI_863/前后5000/模型输出对比分析.md

@@ -0,0 +1,351 @@
+# 案件信息提取模型对比分析
+
+## 案件基本信息
+- **案号**: HCB316/2024
+- **中立引证**: [2024] HKCFI 863
+- **判决日期**: 2024年3月21日
+- **案件类型**: 破产呈请案
+
+---
+
+## 一、基本信息提取准确度对比
+
+### 1.1 当事人信息
+
+| 项目 | 原文 | Gemini-3-Flash | Qwen3-8B | 评价 |
+|------|------|----------------|----------|------|
+| 原告/呈请人 | 王欽賢 | ✓ 王欽賢 | ✓ 王欽賢 | 两者均正确 |
+| 被告/债务人 | 高景波 | ✓ 高景波 | ✓ 高景波 | 两者均正确 |
+
+**结论**: 两个模型在当事人识别上均准确无误。
+
+---
+
+### 1.2 管辖法院信息
+
+| 项目 | 原文 | Gemini-3-Flash | Qwen3-8B | 评价 |
+|------|------|----------------|----------|------|
+| 法院代码 | HKCFI | ✓ HKCFI | ✓ HKCFI | 两者均正确 |
+| 法院全称 | 香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭 | ✓ 完整准确 | ✓ 完整准确 | 两者均正确 |
+| 案件地点 | 香港特別行政區 | ✓ 香港特別行政區 | ✓ 香港特別行政區 | 两者均正确 |
+
+**结论**: 两个模型在管辖信息提取上均准确。
+
+---
+
+## 二、案件事由提取对比
+
+### 2.1 案件事由描述
+
+**原文核心信息**:
+- 呈请人基于区域法院DCCJ 1408/2023案判决
+- 债务人未支付港币$223,867.50的**訟費**
+- 债务人未在法定要求偿债书送达后21天内支付
+- 呈请人申请破产令
+
+**Gemini-3-Flash 提取**:
+> "呈請人王欽賢因債務人高景波未能償還區域法院案號DCCJ 1408/2023所命令支付的港幣$223,867.50訟費債項，向高等法院原訟法庭提出破產呈請，請求對債務人發出破產令。"
+
+**Qwen3-8B 提取**:
+> "呈請人王欽賢就債務人高景波未支付223,867.50港幣債項，向法院提出破產令申索。"
+
+**对比分析**:
+
+| 评估维度 | Gemini-3-Flash | Qwen3-8B |
+|---------|----------------|----------|
+| 债项金额 | ✓ 准确 (HK$223,867.50) | ✓ 准确 (223,867.50港幣) |
+| 债项性质 | ✓ **明确指出是"訟費債項"** | ✗ **仅称"債項"，未说明是訟費** |
+| 前案引用 | ✓ 明确提及DCCJ 1408/2023 | ✗ 未提及前案 |
+| 法律程序 | ✓ 完整描述破产呈请流程 | △ 简化描述 |
+
+**结论**: 
+- **Gemini-3-Flash 更准确**: 明确指出债项性质为"訟費"（诉讼费用），这是本案的关键事实
+- **Qwen3-8B 有遗漏**: 未说明债项来源于诉讼费用判决，信息不够完整
+
+---
+
+### 2.2 案件标的 (case_object)
+
+**Gemini-3-Flash**:
+- 破產令
+- 訟費債項償還
+
+**Qwen3-8B**:
+- 債項償還
+- 作廢申請訟費
+
+**对比分析**:
+- **Gemini**: 准确抓住核心标的（破产令 + 诉讼费债项）
+- **Qwen3-8B**: 
+  - ✓ 提到"債項償還"
+  - ✗ "作廢申請訟費"是程序性费用，不是主要标的
+  - ✗ 未明确提及"破產令"这一核心诉求
+
+**结论**: Gemini-3-Flash 在案件标的识别上更准确。
+
+---
+
+## 三、判决结果提取对比
+
+### 3.1 判决结果结构化程度
+
+**Gemini-3-Flash**: 提取了3个判决结果
+1. 破产呈请（责任问题）- 胜诉
+2. 延期审理申请（责任问题）- 败诉
+3. 诉讼费债项（损失范围）- 胜诉
+
+**Qwen3-8B**: 提取了2个判决结果
+1. 破产呈请的法律程序（责任问题）- 胜诉
+2. 作废申请的诉讼费责任（损失范围）- 败诉
+
+### 3.2 判决结果准确性分析
+
+#### 3.2.1 核心判决 - 破产令
+
+**原文**: "本席對債務人作出慣常破產令"
+
+**Gemini-3-Flash**:
+```yaml
+charge: 呈請人王欽賢對債務人高景波提出的破產呈請 (責任問題)
+result: 勝訴。法庭頒布慣常破產令。理由包括：債務人未能就法定要求償債書項下的債項提出實質抗辯；其提出的反對理由受「既判事項」原則限制；且其聲稱的抵銷申索缺乏證據支持或不具相互性。
+```
+
+**Qwen3-8B**:
+```yaml
+charge: 破產呈請的法律程序 (責任問題)
+result: 勝訴。法庭認為債務人未能達至反對破產呈請所需的舉證標準，且其抗辯理由空泛無據。根據《破產條例》第6A(1)(a)條，債務人未在收到償債書後21天內支付HK$223,867.50，被視為無能力償付。
+```
+
+**对比**:
+- **Gemini**: 
+  - ✓ 准确提及"慣常破產令"
+  - ✓ 完整列出三大理由（实质抗辩、既判事项、抵销申索）
+  - ✓ 法律逻辑清晰
+  
+- **Qwen3-8B**:
+  - ✓ 提及举证标准和抗辩理由
+  - ✓ 引用《破产条例》第6A(1)(a)条
+  - △ 未明确提及"慣常破產令"
+  - △ 未提及"既判事项"原则（这是判决的核心法律依据）
+
+#### 3.2.2 延期审理申请
+
+**原文**: 债务人缺席聆讯，提交信件要求延期，法庭拒绝
+
+**Gemini-3-Flash**:
+```yaml
+charge: 債務人高景波申請延期審理 (責任問題)
+result: 敗訴。法庭裁定債務人未以傳票或誓章形式提出合理解釋，且其清楚知悉聆訊日期，缺席聆訊明顯屬拖延時間，故拒絕押後申請。
+```
+
+**Qwen3-8B**: 
+- ✗ **未提取此判决结果**
+
+**对比**:
+- **Gemini**: 准确提取了延期申请被拒的判决，包含完整理由
+- **Qwen3-8B**: 完全遗漏此判决内容
+
+#### 3.2.3 诉讼费债项/作废申请
+
+**Gemini-3-Flash**:
+```yaml
+charge: 基於區域法院DCCJ 1408/2023命令的訟費債項港幣$223,867.50 (損失範圍)
+result: 勝訴。債務人須按破產令程序處理該筆欠款。法庭確認該債項源於有效的法院命令，且債務人先前的作廢申請已被撤銷，債項屬實。
+```
+
+**Qwen3-8B**:
+```yaml
+charge: 作廢申請的訟費責任 (損失範圍)
+result: 敗訴。債務人申請作廢償債書被撤銷，需承擔作廢申請的訟費。法庭指出其提交的證據不足以支持抗辯，且附件文件未能證明相關案件與本案的關聯性。
+```
+
+**对比**:
+- **Gemini**: 
+  - ✓ 聚焦主债项（HK$223,867.50诉讼费）
+  - ✓ 明确债项来源（区域法院判决）
+  - ✓ 提及作废申请被撤销作为支持理由
+  
+- **Qwen3-8B**:
+  - △ 聚焦作废申请的诉讼费（程序性费用）
+  - ✗ 未明确提及主债项金额和性质
+  - △ 混淆了主债项和程序费用
+
+**结论**: Gemini-3-Flash 在判决结果提取上更全面、更准确。
+
+---
+
+## 四、判决摘要对比
+
+### 4.1 完整性对比
+
+**Gemini-3-Flash 摘要** (约200字):
+- ✓ 完整叙述案件背景（债项来源）
+- ✓ 明确核心争议（延期申请、抗辩、抵销）
+- ✓ 详细法庭分析（既判事项、举证标准）
+- ✓ 清晰判决结果（破产令）
+
+**Qwen3-8B 摘要** (约150字):
+- ✓ 基本案件背景
+- △ 核心争议描述简化
+- △ 法律分析较简略
+- ✓ 判决结果明确
+
+### 4.2 法律术语准确性
+
+| 法律概念 | 原文 | Gemini | Qwen3-8B |
+|---------|------|--------|----------|
+| 既判事项原则 | res judicata | ✓ 明确提及 | ✗ 未提及 |
+| 争论点不容反悔 | issue estoppel | ✓ 提及 | ✗ 未提及 |
+| 相互性 | mutuality | ✓ 提及 | ✗ 未提及 |
+| 慣常破產令 | - | ✓ 准确使用 | △ 未明确 |
+
+**结论**: Gemini-3-Flash 在法律术语提取上更完整、更专业。
+
+---
+
+## 五、涉案实体提取对比
+
+### 5.1 核心实体识别
+
+**共同识别的实体**:
+- 陈静芬法官（主审法官）
+- 高景波（债务人）
+- 王钦贤（呈请人）
+- 叶大律师（呈请人代表）
+- 徐韵华暂委法官
+- 金轮天地控股有限公司
+- 靖海轩
+
+### 5.2 差异实体
+
+**Gemini-3-Flash 独有**:
+- 张娜（债务人指称与呈请人有利益关系）
+- 法律援助署（债务人提及需申请法律援助）
+
+**Qwen3-8B 独有**:
+- 高等法院原讼法庭（作为审级机构）
+
+### 5.3 实体描述准确性
+
+**陈静芬法官**:
+- **Gemini**: "本案主審法官，負責審理破產呈請並作出破產令裁決。" ✓
+- **Qwen3-8B**: "本案主審法官，負責認定事實及裁決。" ✓
+
+**徐韵华暂委法官**:
+- **Gemini**: "在 [2024] HKCFI 92 中擔任原訟法庭暫委法官，曾裁定撤銷債務人的法定要求償債書作廢申請。" ✓ 准确
+- **Qwen3-8B**: "在DCCJ 1408/2023案中擔任審裁官，闡述既判事項原則，本案第7段引用其判詞。" ✗ **错误**
+
+**原文事实**: 徐韵华法官是在**作废申请**（撤销法定要求偿债书申请）中作出裁决，判决书编号为[2024] HKCFI 92，而非DCCJ 1408/2023案。
+
+**结论**: 
+- Gemini-3-Flash 在实体识别上更全面（包含张娜、法律援助署）
+- Qwen3-8B 在徐韵华法官的案件关联上出现**事实错误**
+
+---
+
+## 六、综合评分
+
+### 6.1 准确度评分 (满分10分)
+
+| 评估维度 | Gemini-3-Flash | Qwen3-8B |
+|---------|----------------|----------|
+| 当事人信息 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
+| 管辖信息 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
+| 案件事由 | 9.5 | 7.0 |
+| 案件标的 | 9.0 | 6.5 |
+| 判决结果 | 9.5 | 7.5 |
+| 判决摘要 | 9.0 | 7.5 |
+| 涉案实体 | 9.0 | 7.0 |
+| **平均分** | **9.43** | **7.93** |
+
+### 6.2 完整度评分 (满分10分)
+
+| 评估维度 | Gemini-3-Flash | Qwen3-8B |
+|---------|----------------|----------|
+| 基本信息完整度 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
+| 案件事由完整度 | 9.5 | 7.0 |
+| 判决结果完整度 | 9.5 | 7.0 |
+| 法律依据完整度 | 9.0 | 7.5 |
+| 实体信息完整度 | 9.0 | 7.5 |
+| **平均分** | **9.40** | **7.80** |
+
+---
+
+## 七、关键差异总结
+
+### 7.1 Gemini-3-Flash 的优势
+
+1. **债项性质识别准确**: 明确指出是"訟費債項"（诉讼费用），而非普通债务
+2. **判决结果全面**: 提取了3个判决结果，包括延期申请被拒
+3. **法律术语完整**: 准确提取"既判事项"、"争论点不容反悔"、"相互性"等核心法律概念
+4. **实体信息丰富**: 识别出张娜、法律援助署等次要实体
+5. **前案引用准确**: 明确提及DCCJ 1408/2023和[2024] HKCFI 92
+
+### 7.2 Qwen3-8B 的不足
+
+1. **债项性质模糊**: 仅称"債項"，未说明是诉讼费用
+2. **判决结果遗漏**: 未提取延期审理申请被拒的判决
+3. **法律概念缺失**: 未提及"既判事项"等核心法律原则
+4. **案件标的混淆**: 将"作废申请诉讼费"作为主要标的，实际应为"破产令"
+5. **事实错误**: 徐韵华法官的案件关联描述错误
+
+### 7.3 Qwen3-8B 的优势
+
+1. **引用法条**: 明确引用《破产条例》第6A(1)(a)条
+2. **结构清晰**: 判决摘要逻辑清晰，虽然简化但核心信息完整
+3. **基本信息准确**: 当事人、管辖法院等基础信息无误
+
+---
+
+## 八、结论与建议
+
+### 8.1 总体结论
+
+**Gemini-3-Flash-Preview 表现更优**:
+- **准确度**: 9.43/10 vs 7.93/10
+- **完整度**: 9.40/10 vs 7.80/10
+- **综合评价**: Gemini在法律案件信息提取任务中表现显著优于Qwen3-8B
+
+### 8.2 具体差距
+
+1. **法律专业性**: Gemini对法律术语和概念的理解更深入
+2. **信息完整性**: Gemini提取的信息更全面，遗漏更少
+3. **细节准确性**: Gemini在债项性质、案件标的等关键细节上更准确
+4. **事实核查**: Qwen3-8B出现事实性错误（徐韵华法官案件关联）
+
+### 8.3 改进建议
+
+**对于 Qwen3-8B**:
+1. 加强对法律术语的识别和提取能力
+2. 提高对案件核心标的的判断准确性
+3. 改进判决结果的全面性提取
+4. 加强事实核查，避免案件关联错误
+5. 增强对债项性质等关键细节的识别
+
+**对于 Gemini-3-Flash**:
+1. 已表现优秀，可继续保持
+2. 可进一步优化判决摘要的简洁性（在保持完整性的前提下）
+
+---
+
+## 九、评分可视化
+
+```
+准确度对比:
+Gemini-3-Flash:  ████████████████████ 9.43/10
+Qwen3-8B:        ████████████████     7.93/10
+
+完整度对比:
+Gemini-3-Flash:  ████████████████████ 9.40/10
+Qwen3-8B:        ████████████████     7.80/10
+
+综合评分:
+Gemini-3-Flash:  ████████████████████ 9.42/10
+Qwen3-8B:        ████████████████     7.87/10
+```
+
+---
+
+**分析完成日期**: 2024年3月
+**分析案件**: [2024] HKCFI 863 (HCB316/2024)
+**对比模型**: Gemini-3-Flash-Preview vs Qwen3-8B

案件信息提取思路.md

@@ -1,169 +0,0 @@
-我需要从一个案件的content里面提取我想要的信息案件，案件内容比较长，可长达几万个字不等。但用的是本地ollama的小模型，如何在这些有限条件下提高信息提取的准确度？
-
-# Extraction Rules (字段提取规则)
-
-## 一、 主体与管辖信息
-1. `plaintiff` (原告/申索人/上诉人/覆核申请人) [数组]
-   - 提取所有当事人的完整姓名或机构名（含中英文）。若无则输出空数组 `[]`。
-2. `defendant` (被告/答辩人/被上诉人) [数组]
-   - 提取所有被告的完整姓名或机构名。若无则输出空数组 `[]`。
-3. `jurisdiction_code` (司法区域代码) [字符串]
-   - 提取官方代码，如：HKSCT, HKCFA, HKCA, HKCFI 等。
-4. `jurisdiction_name` (司法区域名称) [字符串]
-   - 完整的法院或审裁处名称（如：香港特別行政區終審法院）。
-5. `case_location` (案件地点) [数组]
-   - 提取与案件直接相关的**地理位置**。
-   - ✅ **必须包含**：司法管辖区（如 "香港特別行政區"）。
-   - ✅ **可包含**：行政区域、城市、国家（如 "九龍", "Luxor City, Egypt"）。
-   - ❌ **严禁提取**：法院名称（如"小額錢債審裁處"）、具体建筑物或场所名称（如"通州街公園"、"某某大厦"）。若原文无明确地点，仅输出司法管辖区。
-
-## 二、 核心案件要素
-6. `case_reason` (事由) [字符串]
-   - **字数强制限制**：绝对不可超过 100 字，必须浓缩为单句。
-   - **内容公式**：`[原告身份] + [针对什么事件/行为] + [向谁] + [提出什么请求/诉讼]`。
-   - ⚠️ **覆核/上诉案件特例**：需指明对哪个裁决（含日期/案号）提出覆核、核心理由及法律依据。
-   - ❌ **严禁包含**：判决结果、法庭分析、详细案发经过。
-7. `case_object` (案件标的物) [数组]
-   - 提取诉讼请求指向的**实体权利或利益**（如：私人財物損失賠償、精神困擾賠償、合同履行、房产所有权）。合并本质相同的标的物。
-   - ❌ **严禁提取**：证据材料（如单据、证人证词）、程序性诉求（如"要求法庭裁决"、"追究责任"）。
-
-## 三、 裁判与实体分析
-8. `judgment_result` (判决结果) [对象数组]
-   - **拆分原则**：若案件涉及多项请求，或包含“责任判定”与“损失/金额计算”两个层面，**必须分条列出**。
-   - 子字段 `charge` [字符串]：具体的诉讼请求或覆核理由（请在括号内标注是“责任问题”还是“损失范围”）。
-   - 子字段 `result` [字符串]：明确的裁决结果（胜诉/败诉/部分胜诉/维持/撤销等），并简述 2-3 个关键法庭理由及具体金额/命令。
-9. `judgment_summary` (判决总结) [字符串]
-   - **字数强制限制**：不得超过 300 字。
-   - **结构四要素**：
-     (1) 案件背景（1-2句话交代起因与当事人关系）；
-     (2) 核心争议焦点；
-     (3) **法庭法律分析与推理（核心重点）**：法庭如何评估证据？接受/拒绝主张的逻辑是什么？引用了哪些关键法律或判例？
-     (4) 最终裁决结果及命令。
-   - ⚠️ 必须使用 YAML 多行字符串语法（`>`）。
-10. `involved_entities` (涉及实体) [对象数组]
-    - 仅提取与案件相关的**自然人、法人、组织、机构**。
-    - 子字段 `entity_name` [字符串]：实体全称（如 "林希維審裁官", "康樂文化事務署"）。
-    - 子字段 `reason` [字符串]：说明其在案件中的角色与作用。
-    - ⚠️ **法官提取特例**：除主审法官外，**必须提取法庭引用的先例中所提及的法官**（reason 需写明：在XX案[案号]中担任XX职位，阐述XX法律原则及引用的段落）。
-    - ❌ **严禁提取**：法案名、条例名、法律条文、纯案例名称、文献期刊名。
-
----
-
-# Strict YAML Format Constraints (严格格式约束)
-- 遇到包含冒号 `:`、井号 `#`、连字符 `-` 的字符串时，**必须**使用双引号 `""` 将其包裹，防止 YAML 解析错误。
-- 对于长文本（`case_reason`, `judgment_summary`），请使用 `>` 折叠换行符。
-
-# Output Template
-请严格按照以下格式输出结果，不要输出任何多余的解释：
-
-```yaml
-plaintiff:
-  - ""
-defendant:
-  - ""
-jurisdiction_code: ""
-jurisdiction_name: ""
-case_location:
-  - ""
-case_reason: >
-  [此处填入符合公式、限 100 字内的事由]
-case_object:
-  - ""
-judgment_result:
-  - charge: "[请求描述] (责任问题/损失范围)"
-    result: "[裁定结果及理由简述]"
-judgment_summary: >
-  [此处填入包含四要素的判决总结，限 300 字内]
-involved_entities:
-  - entity_name: ""
-    reason: ""
-
-
-----------案件信息提取思路--------------
-
-针对你的场景（本地小模型 + 数万字长文本 + 严格结构化抽取），单次喂入全文 + 一次性输出所有字段几乎注定失败。提升准确度的关键不在"换更好的提示词"，而在**重构整个抽取管线**。以下是按优先级排列的策略：
-
-## 一、核心思路：放弃"一次抽取所有字段"
-
-小模型在长上下文里会严重"注意力稀释"，必须把任务拆小。建议改成 **预处理 → 定位 → 分组抽取 → 校验** 四阶段管线。
-
-## 二、预处理：先用规则把文本"压缩"和"切片"
-
-在送入模型前，用纯代码做这些事，能让有效输入缩短 70% 以上：
-
-- **去噪**：删除页眉页脚、页码、空行、重复的法院抬头、英文与中文重复段落（HK 判决书常见双语，可只保留中文版本，整段省一半）。
-- **结构化切段**：判决书有强格式特征，用正则切分出：`【案件编号】`、`【当事人】`、`【判决理由】`、`【判决结果】`、`【命令】` 等区块，做成 `dict[section_name, text]`。
-- **元数据用规则直接抽**：以下字段根本不需要 LLM：
-  - `jurisdiction_code` / `jurisdiction_name`：正则匹配 `HKSCT|HKCFA|...` 或法院全称。
-  - `case_location`：从法院名映射（HKSCT → 香港特別行政區）。
-  - 案件编号、日期、案号引用：正则。
-- 规则能覆盖的字段准确率 ≈ 100%，不要浪费在模型上。
-
-## 三、定位-再抽取（Locate-then-Extract）
-
-每个字段都有"高信号区域"，先定位再喂局部：
-
-| 字段 | 高信号区域 |
-|---|---|
-| `plaintiff` / `defendant` | 文档前 500–1000 字（标头部分） |
-| `case_reason` | 首段 + "申索"/"訴因"/"本案涉及" 关键词附近段落 |
-| `case_object` | "申索金额"、"索償"、"诉讼请求" 附近 |
-| `judgment_result` | 文末 1000–2000 字（"本席命令"、"判決"、"裁定"） |
-| `involved_entities`（先例法官） | 含"案[" / "v." / "[20XX]" 引用案例的句子 |
-| `judgment_summary` | 全文，但可用提取出的其他字段拼接 |
-
-实现：用关键词或 BM25/embedding 检索筛出每个字段的 Top-K 段落（一般 3-5 段，2000 字以内），只把这部分喂给模型。
-
-## 四、分组分次调用，而不是一次性全部输出
-
-小模型一次吐 10 个字段一定有崩。把抽取分成 4-5 次独立调用：
-
-1. **Call 1（主体）**：plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction（用文档前部）
-2. **Call 2（事由+标的）**：case_reason, case_object（用首段 + 申索段）
-3. **Call 3（判决结果）**：judgment_result（用文末判决段）
-4. **Call 4（涉及实体）**：involved_entities（用先例引用段）
-5. **Call 5（总结）**：judgment_summary（把前 4 步结果拼回去喂模型生成，而不是从原文重新生成）
-
-第 5 步特别关键——总结的输入是已抽取的结构化数据，而不是几万字原文，质量会跳一档。
-
-## 五、用 Ollama 的强制结构化输出
-
-Ollama 原生支持 `format: "json"`（或 `format` 传 JSON Schema），强制模型只输出合法 JSON。**先输出 JSON，再用代码转 YAML**，比让小模型直接写 YAML 稳定得多——小模型在 YAML 缩进、`>` 折叠、`""` 转义上极易出错。
-
-每个 Call 用对应的子 schema 约束，例如 Call 1 的 schema 只包含 4 个字段，模型几乎无法跑偏。
-
-## 六、Few-shot 示例（每个 Call 1-2 个就够）
-
-给一个完整正例 + 一个反例（"❌ 不要这样做"），效果远胜纯规则描述。例如对 `case_location`：
-
-```
-✅ 正确：["香港特別行政區", "九龍"]
-❌ 错误：["小額錢債審裁處", "通州街公園"]  ← 这是法院名和场所名，不是地点
-```
-
-小模型不擅长抽象规则，但能很好地模仿示例。
-
-## 七、后处理校验 + 失败重试
-
-每个 Call 出来后用代码校验：
-
-- **格式校验**：JSON 解析、字段类型、数组非空规则。
-- **业务校验**：`case_reason` 字数 ≤ 100；`judgment_summary` ≤ 300；`case_location` 不含法院关键词（用黑名单 `["法院", "法庭", "審裁處"]`）；`involved_entities` 不含法案名（黑名单 `["條例", "法案", "Cap."]`）。
-- **失败时**：把校验错误信息回灌给模型重试一次（"上次输出超过 100 字，请精简到 80 字以内"），通常一次重试就能修正。
-
-## 八、可选增强
-
-- **温度调到 0**（`temperature: 0`），抽取任务不要随机性。
-- **量化精度**：如果用的是 Q4 量化，换 Q5_K_M 或 Q6_K，结构化抽取对量化精度敏感，提升明显。
-- **模型选型**：同尺寸下，Qwen2.5、GLM4 系列在中文抽取任务上明显强于 Llama 系；7B 量级的 Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct 在你这类任务上是甜点。
-- **自一致性**：对关键字段跑 2-3 次取众数，能压一部分波动（代价是延迟翻倍）。
-
-## 九、推荐的最小可行落地顺序
-
-如果只让你做三件事，按这个顺序做收益最大：
-
-1. **正则抽元数据 + 文档分段**（一天工作量，准确率拉满）。
-2. **改成分 4-5 次调用 + JSON 强制输出**（半天，崩溃率断崖式下降）。
-3. **每字段加 Few-shot + 校验重试**（一天，长尾错误大幅减少）。
-
-做完这三步，小模型也能在长判决书上跑出可用准确率。剩下的 prompt 微调和模型选型是锦上添花。