---
name: cn-ib-regulatory-case-research
description: Find, screen, rank, and synthesize Chinese capital-markets regulatory precedents and comparable filing responses. Use for 上交所、深交所、北交所、证监会 IPO or refinancing questions involving 问询回复、审核关注、监管案例、上市案例、可比案例、回复框架、中介核查程序、分拆上市、多资本市场上市、历史沿革、业务独立性 or other precedent research. Exclude secondary-market investment recommendations and use primary filings whenever available.
---

# CN IB Regulatory Case Research

Build a defensible precedent set. Do not return a list of documents that merely share keywords.

## Principles

1. Search primary regulatory and issuer filings before media, databases, or summaries.
2. Separate question similarity, fact-pattern similarity, business similarity, and procedural-stage similarity.
3. Preserve the exact question, response, intermediary procedure, conclusion, source URL/file, and page.
4. Do not treat a precedent as binding law or assume a past outcome predicts the current review result.
5. Distinguish what the issuer stated from what the sponsor, counsel, or accountant verified.
6. Report negative and imperfect precedents when they materially inform the risk.

## Workflow

### 1. Decompose the research question

Write an issue tree containing:

- explicit regulatory questions;
- implicit review concerns;
- relevant facts and transaction structure;
- responsible intermediary;
- target board and review stage;
- expected evidence and possible follow-up questions.

Do not search the full user sentence as the only query.

### 2. Build a search vocabulary

Read `references/search-strategy.md`. Create combinations of:

- regulatory terminology;
- business and product terminology;
- accounting/legal synonyms;
- issuer characteristics;
- board and filing stage;
- known comparable issuers.

Record every material query so the search is reproducible.

### 3. Search in source order

Prioritize:

1. exchange and CSRC filing pages;
2. issuer-filed prospectuses, inquiry responses, sponsor reports, and legal/accounting opinions;
3. official rules, guidance, and disciplinary decisions;
4. licensed databases or structured filing repositories;
5. professional summaries only as discovery aids.

Use a secondary source to find a case, then return to the primary filing for evidence.

If `cn-ib-source-verifier` is available, use its source-connector registry to plan the access path. In particular, use 见微数据 as a case-discovery and prospectus-comparison aid, not as a substitute for the underlying exchange or CSRC document.

### 4. Create the candidate matrix

Use `assets/case-matrix-template.csv`. One row must identify:

```text
case_id, issuer, board, regulator, filing_date, filing_type,
question_topic, exact_question, response_summary, intermediary_procedures,
outcome, source_url, page, direct_quote,
issue_similarity, fact_pattern_similarity, business_similarity,
regulatory_stage_similarity, evidence_quality, recency
```

Do not score a case until the primary filing and page have been confirmed.

### 5. Rank candidates

Read `references/relevance-rubric.md`, score each dimension from 0 to 5, then run:

```bash
python3 scripts/rank_cases.py cases.csv --output ranked-cases.csv
```

The default weighting favors issue and fact-pattern similarity over industry similarity. Review the ranking manually; a score does not replace judgment.

### 6. Extract the regulatory pattern

For the strongest cases, separate:

- regulator's explicit concern;
- issuer's factual explanation;
- quantitative support;
- sponsor procedures;
- counsel procedures;
- accountant procedures;
- unresolved limitations;
- follow-up questions and final status if available.

Do not merge statements from different parties into one unattributed answer.

### 7. Apply precedents to the current task

Explain:

- which precedents are directly comparable;
- which are analogous only;
- what evidence the current issuer would need;
- which response structures recur;
- what differences may prevent direct reliance;
- likely follow-up questions.

Use cautious language: `可供参考`, `具有一定可比性`, `事实基础存在差异`, or `不能直接类推`.

## Output contract

Deliver:

1. one-paragraph answer to the research question;
2. ranked precedent table;
3. source-backed extracts with page references;
4. recurring regulatory concerns and response patterns;
5. recommended evidence and intermediary procedures;
6. gaps, non-comparable facts, and search limitations.

Do not download or retain unnecessary filing copies in the user's deal directory. Use temporary storage and retain only requested final artifacts.