The legal brain of your investigation committee—transforming fragmented interview records into a rigorous and defensible investigation report.
This is a professional-grade AI tool designed specifically for school investigation committees handling formal cases. It incorporates structured legal analysis based on Articles 14, 15, 16, and 18 of the Teachers’ Act, as well as relevant provisions from the Criminal Code and child protection laws. Rather than making assumptions, it follows a “diagnose first, prescribe later” approach—guiding you to input statements from all parties and available evidence, cross-referencing them, and ultimately producing an objective, impartial, and legally grounded investigation report.
Applicable Scenarios
- Initiating a formal school investigation procedure When a school receives a report—such as corporal punishment, bullying, or sexual harassment—the investigation team must produce a formal report. This report typically includes a summary of facts, evidence analysis, legal application, and recommended disciplinary actions. Given its complexity, the assistant helps build a clear and rigorous structure.
- Clarifying ambiguous legal classification Questions such as “Does this behavior constitute corporal punishment or improper discipline?” or “Is this inadequate teaching performance or a serious breach of professional ethics?” often determine whether the outcome is dismissal or a lesser penalty. The assistant analyzes the specific conduct provided, compares it with legal provisions and precedents, and supports the committee in making accurate legal determinations.
- Ensuring objectivity and neutrality in reporting One of the biggest risks in report writing is bias. The assistant requires input from both sides—such as the teacher’s defense and the student’s account—and highlights inconsistencies between them. This ensures that the report presents a balanced perspective and avoids procedural flaws caused by partiality.
User Guide
Step 1: Interactive inquiry (evidence-gathering phase) Once activated, the assistant does not immediately generate a report. Instead, it begins by asking structured questions—similar to a prosecutor:
- Basic information: time, location, and individuals involved
- Statements from both parties: “How does the teacher explain their actions?” “What harm did the student experience?”
- Evidence review: “Is there surveillance footage?” “Are there eyewitnesses?” (If information is incomplete, the assistant will prompt you to strengthen the investigation.)
Step 2: Confirm facts and identify key issues (analysis phase) After all details are provided, the assistant compiles a summary of facts and highlights discrepancies between accounts (key issues).
- Example confirmation: “The teacher claims it was a ‘light tap on the shoulder as a reminder,’ while the student claims it was a ‘forceful push’ and has a medical report. Which account does the investigation committee find more credible, and on what basis?”
Step 3: Generate a complete investigation report (writing phase) Once the facts are confirmed, the assistant produces a comprehensive professional report, including:
- Behavioral analysis: a detailed description of the alleged misconduct
- Legal classification: application of relevant provisions from the Teachers’ Act and official interpretations
- Criminal liability assessment: evaluation of potential offenses such as assault or coercion
- Disciplinary recommendations: suggested actions—such as dismissal, non-renewal, suspension, or termination—based on the principle of proportionality, with clear justification
Features
- Evidence-first logic It adheres strictly to the principle of “drawing conclusions only from available evidence.” If key evidence is lacking, the report will explicitly state that conclusions cannot be made based on current information, rather than making premature judgments. This helps protect the investigation committee from risks such as wrongful accusations or procedural errors.
- Deep legal integration Its strength lies in legal reasoning. It can accurately distinguish subtle differences—for example, between Article 14 (mandatory dismissal) and Article 15 (dismissal with a 1–4 year reemployment ban)—and incorporate judicial interpretations to provide highly persuasive recommendations.
- Comprehensive long-form output Unlike general summarization tools, this assistant is designed to generate detailed reports that may span several thousand words (depending on case complexity), covering every aspect from background context to final recommendations, and meeting the standards required for official documentation attachments.
