Comparative Law: Functional Comparison & Transplant Screening

Run a comparison the way comparative-law methodology actually requires: start from a shared functional problem, find how each system solves it (whatever doctrinal label or institution it uses), then assess whether a foreign solution can be transplanted into the target system. This skill exists because the most common comparative failure — flagged by every law / sports-law profile — is the "superficial jurisdiction list": "在美国是X，在德国是Y，在日本是Z，所以中国应当W", with no functional equivalence and no transplant analysis.

Context: $ARGUMENTS

Constants

• OUT_DOC: COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS.md at the project / paper root
• OUT_JSON: COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS.json (machine-consumable; feeds /legal-writing and /argument-stress-test)
• Default target system: from PRISM_PROFILE.md (Chinese sports law for sports-law); else ask or infer.

When to Use

• When an argument relies on a foreign model and needs to be made rigorous
• Before /argument-stress-test's comparative-validity test, to supply the analysis it checks
• Standalone, to map the solution space for a governance problem

Protocol

Step 1: State the functional problem (tertium comparationis)

Name the shared problem all systems face, stated functionally and neutrally — not in any one system's doctrinal vocabulary. This is the tertium comparationis, the common third term that makes comparison valid.

• ✅ "How does each system allocate the commercial value of live-event data between the organizer and third parties?"
• ❌ "How does each system treat 赛事数据的不正当竞争保护?" (already framed in one system's doctrine — biases the comparison)

Step 2: Find functional equivalents per system

For each system being compared, identify whatever legal mechanism actually performs that function — it may be a statute, a tort doctrine, a competition-law rule, an IP right, a contractual / association-rule regime, or a CAS award line. Do not assume the function lives in the same doctrinal box as in the home system. Record per system:

• system: jurisdiction or governance order (state, EU, CAS, FIFA, NCAA, …)
• mechanism: the actual functional solution (with pin-cites)
• how_it_works: the operative rule in one or two sentences
• enforcement: who enforces it and how (court / arbitral / association / self-help)
• outcome: the practical result it produces for the function in Step 1

Step 3: Compare on the function, not the label

Build a comparison matrix keyed by the function. Surface:

• where systems converge (same outcome via different mechanisms)
• where they diverge and why (different background institutions, not just different rules — e.g. presence/absence of a database right, of antitrust scrutiny, of a strong association-autonomy tradition)
• which differences are doctrinal surface vs functionally consequential

Step 4: Transplant screening

For any foreign solution proposed for the target system, screen feasibility:

• legal_compatibility: does it fit the target's positive law and rule hierarchy?
• institutional_fit: do the enforcing institutions exist in the target (courts, arbitral bodies, regulators, associations with the needed capacity)?
• background_conditions: does the solution depend on background conditions the target lacks (e.g. a database sui generis right, a particular antitrust regime)?
• adaptation_needed: what must change for it to work in the target?
• verdict: transplantable | transplantable-with-adaptation | ill-suited

A solution that works abroad because of background conditions the target lacks is ill-suited even if doctrinally attractive — saying so is the point of the screen.

Step 5: Emit artifacts

Write COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS.json and .md. JSON schema:

{
  "skill": "comparative-law",
  "date": "2026-05-29",
  "discipline": "sports-law",
  "function": "如何在赛事组织者与第三方之间分配赛事数据的商业价值",
  "target_system": "中国法",
  "systems": [
    {
      "system": "欧盟",
      "mechanism": "数据库特殊权利（Database Directive 96/9/EC sui generis right）",
      "how_it_works": "对数据库的实质性投入获得独立于版权的提取/再利用控制权。",
      "enforcement": "成员国法院",
      "outcome": "组织者获得较强的私权式控制。"
    },
    {
      "system": "美国",
      "mechanism": "无数据库专有权，主要依赖合同 + 盗用(misappropriation)/热点新闻原则的有限残余",
      "how_it_works": "以准入合同和有限的不正当竞争法理控制，私权化程度低。",
      "enforcement": "法院（合同/侵权）",
      "outcome": "控制力较弱，更依赖私人秩序。"
    }
  ],
  "convergence": ["都承认组织者对赛事接入有合同层面的控制"],
  "divergence": ["是否承认独立于合同的私权式数据权利——取决于是否存在数据库特殊权利这一背景制度"],
  "transplant": {
    "candidate": "欧盟式数据库特殊权利",
    "legal_compatibility": "中国现行法无对应 sui generis 权利，需新设或借由反不正当竞争一般条款近似实现",
    "institutional_fit": "法院可执行，但缺乏专门登记/权利边界制度",
    "background_conditions": "依赖一个中国尚不存在的数据库专有权背景制度",
    "adaptation_needed": "改以反不正当竞争+合同的功能近似方案，而非直接移植专有权",
    "verdict": "transplantable-with-adaptation"
  }
}

Step 6: Print summary

📋 Comparative Analysis Complete  (discipline: sports-law)

  Function:        赛事数据商业价值的分配
  Systems compared: 欧盟 / 美国 / 中国(目标)
  Convergence:      1 point
  Divergence:       1 functionally-consequential difference
  Transplant:       transplantable-with-adaptation
                    (欧盟专有权依赖中国缺失的背景制度，建议功能近似)

  See COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS.md for the matrix and transplant screen.

Local Wiki Defaults

Query the profile's external wiki / research-wiki/ before web search (read wiki/index.md, run query_wiki.py). Write durable comparative memos to wiki/memos/. Never modify raw/.

Key Rules

• Tertium comparationis first. No comparison without a neutral functional problem statement. Framing the function in one system's doctrine biases everything.
• Functional equivalents, not labels. The same function may live in tort here, competition law there, contract elsewhere. Find the mechanism that does the work.
• Explain divergence by institutions, not just rules. Different outcomes usually trace to different background conditions; name them.
• Always screen transplant feasibility. A foreign solution is a recommendation only after the background-conditions check. ill-suited is a valid, valuable result.
• No superficial jurisdiction lists. A flat "country X does A, Y does B" with no function and no transplant screen is exactly the anti-pattern this skill replaces.