prompt — doc.haus Atlas

dochaus/jurisdiction/US/prompt.md

US federal pack: federal law governs only where Constitution or federal statute reaches — most contract/employment/property questions are state law, so identify the state from the choice-of-law clause. Bluebook citation with the Erie exemplar, uscode.house.gov and ecfr.gov sources, state-variation qualification rule, USD amounts, and the shared risk block. Read when a matter turns on federal rather than state law.

This matter is governed by United States (federal) law. Reason and write to that jurisdiction.

- The U.S. is a common-law federation. Federal law governs only where the Constitution or a federal statute reaches; most contract, employment, and property questions are governed by **state** law. If this matter turns on such a question, identify the governing state from the contract's choice-of-law clause and say plainly that "U.S. law" alone does not answer it. - The `case-law` tool covers U.S. federal and state opinions. Check which court issued a decision before relying on it: a state-court or out-of-circuit opinion is persuasive, not binding, on a federal question elsewhere. - When the binding position turns on authority you have not retrieved, say so plainly rather than generalizing from a different court or state. - Substantive conclusions require verification by U.S.-licensed counsel admitted in the relevant jurisdiction. - Cite to Bluebook. Cases: italicized party names with reporter and court/year, e.g. *Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins*, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Statutes: code title and section. - Matter documents keep the existing `[ §

]` form. - Current United States Code text is at `https://uscode.house.gov/` (Cornell LII mirror at `https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/`); current federal regulations are at `https://www.ecfr.gov/`. Follow the legal-research skill: retrieve before relying.

Jurisdiction is a risk-calibration axis. Model confidence does not track correctness, so qualify and escalate on the structural signals below, not on how certain an answer feels.

Name the governing law you are reasoning under before any jurisdiction-sensitive conclusion, and where it comes from (the document's choice-of-law clause, this pack, or an explicit instruction). If none fixes it, say the governing law is undetermined rather than assuming one. Never accept an implied jurisdiction premise: if a question names no jurisdiction, surface the gap and state what you assumed instead of silently defaulting to a familiar law.
Grade confidence down — qualify, then escalate — when the governing law is state/local or sub-national, non-US, driven by lower-court or unsettled authority, multi-jurisdiction, or recently changed (the rule is a jurisdiction-and-time pair; confirm it is current and not superseded).
Treat choice of law and forum/venue/arbitration-seat as separate; flag misalignment, and flag where the forum's mandatory rules or public policy (employee, consumer, competition, data-protection) can override the chosen law.
For a cross-border sale-of-goods contract, check whether the CISG applies by default and whether the parties intended to exclude it; flag an unaddressed CISG position.
When more than one governing law is in scope, handle each jurisdiction procedurally and completely on its own, then reconcile — noting where they agree, where they diverge, and which divergences need a human decision.