Case escalation determination method and system for pre-litigation assessment

Abstract

The application discloses a case upgrading judgment method and system for pre-litigation assessment, and the method comprises the following steps: obtaining a case handling material, and obtaining an evidence chain field table through structured analysis; constructing an evidence missing matrix according to the evidence chain field table, and calculating the completeness of the case handling material according to the evidence missing matrix; respectively calculating the law suit path generation value and the negotiation path generation value according to the evidence missing matrix; collecting the capacity parameters of law suit resources, calculating the case judgment value based on the capacity parameters, the law suit path generation value and the negotiation path generation value, and judging the judgment value and the task flow threshold to determine the upgrading scheme of the case handling.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of computer information processing technology, and in particular to a method and system for determining the escalation of cases in pre-trial legal assessment. Background Technology

[0002] In the disposal of non-performing assets, pre-litigation assessment is used to determine whether a disposal case meets the conditions for entering legal paths such as litigation or pre-litigation preservation. In the practice of pre-litigation assessment, the escalation of a disposal case to a legal path is determined after reviewing and sorting out triggering conditions such as amount, age of accounts receivable, number of negotiations, and asset clues. Among these, how to effectively utilize triggering conditions to accurately determine the escalation path of a disposal case has become a key technical issue.

[0003] Existing technologies determine the escalation path for cases by reviewing the completeness and feasibility of the materials. However, the following shortcomings still exist, leading to a lack of effectiveness and accuracy in determining the escalation path: (1) The standard for upgrading legal paths is static: it is impossible to simultaneously take into account the costs of litigation, negotiation, evidence completeness, and enforcement difficulty; (2) Lack of differentiated judgment in handling cases: For example, cases with missing evidence but which can be supplemented, cases with strong asset clues but incomplete materials, and cases with potential for negotiation, without reasonable differentiated judgment, are prone to misjudgment. (3) Over-reliance on prior experience: Whether to escalate a case to a legal path depends heavily on human experience, and the judgment and execution process is a cross-team collaboration. The judgment standards of each team are not uniform, making it difficult to form a stable judgment mechanism for batch cases.

[0004] It is evident that existing technologies have shortcomings that urgently need to be addressed. Summary of the Invention

[0005] The technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a method and system for determining the escalation of a case in a pre-trial assessment, which can effectively utilize the triggering conditions of case data to provide an accurate determination result of the escalation path of the case.

[0006] To address the aforementioned technical problems, the first aspect of this invention discloses a method for determining case escalation based on pre-trial legal assessment, the method comprising: Obtain case information and obtain the evidence chain field table through structured parsing; Construct an evidence missing matrix based on the evidence chain field table, and calculate the completeness of case materials based on the evidence missing matrix; Calculate the cost of the legal action path and the cost of the negotiation path based on the evidence missing matrix. The capacity parameters of legal litigation resources are collected, and the case judgment value is calculated based on the capacity parameters, the value of legal litigation path, and the value of negotiation path. The escalation plan for handling cases is determined based on the judgment value and the task flow threshold.

[0007] As an optional implementation, in the first aspect of the present invention, the case handling data includes scanned copies, text files, business records, and external records that record information related to currently handled cases and historically handled cases; The evidence chain field table includes multiple field items, each of which includes a field value, field type, field source, and field expiration label; The field types include contract subject field, debt amount field, accounting record field, notification delivery field, identity verification field, address stability field, asset clue field, historical negotiation field, historical disposal field, and reminder record field; The capacity parameters include the current case digestibility, pre-litigation review capacity, remaining cost to be covered, case backlog, and regional enforcement difficulty. The capacity parameters are normalized to the range [0,1] to represent the capacity level.

[0008] As an optional implementation, in the first aspect of the invention, the evidence missing matrix is ​​represented as follows: , where the i-th row of element m corresponds to the i-th field item in the evidence chain field table, the j-th column represents the state dimension corresponding to the field item, and n is the total number of rows; The state dimensions include existence state, validity, temporal continuity, verifiability, and the level of impact of missing information; Specifically, the state mapping function is used to convert the field items in the evidence chain field table into matrix elements to construct an evidence missing matrix, which in turn represents the evidentiary characteristics of the case materials.

[0009] As an optional implementation, in the first aspect of the invention, calculating the completeness of case data based on the evidence missing matrix includes: The weighted calculation of the actual total missing score for all field items in the evidence missing matrix at each state dimension is performed. The theoretical maximum missing total score for all state dimensions is calculated by weighting the dimensional weights. The remaining ratio between the actual total missing score and the theoretical maximum total missing score is calculated to obtain the completeness of the case data.

[0010] As an optional implementation, in the first aspect of the invention, the method for calculating the cost of a claim path based on the evidence deficiency matrix includes: Based on the expected total litigation duration, time value rate, subject matter of the case, and time loss of all indirect loss categories determined by the legal proceedings field in the evidence missing matrix, the cyclical cost of the legal proceedings path is calculated. Based on the fields of historical litigation costs in the evidence missing matrix, the case acceptance cost, lawyer resource cost, third-party cost, and litigation basis cost are determined, and the resource cost of the litigation path is calculated. Based on the fields related to historical execution in the evidence missing matrix, the subject matter of the case, recovery rate, basic costs of legal proceedings, and risk of delayed performance are determined, and the risk costs of the legal proceedings path are calculated. The cost of supplementing evidence for the legal proceedings path is calculated by summing the weights of the field items and the state dimension in the evidence missing matrix. The cost of the legal proceedings path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, risk cost, and cost of supplementary evidence.

[0011] As an optional implementation, in the first aspect of the invention, calculating the negotiation path cost based on the evidence missing matrix includes: Determine the cycle cost and resource cost under the negotiation path based on the negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix; Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, the negotiation success rate and commitment fulfillment rate are determined, and the cost of negotiation default risk is calculated. Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, determine the total resource category of the negotiation path, the resource cost of each resource category, the period of continuous negotiation, the average cost of all resources, and the opportunity cost, and calculate the resource occupation cost. The cost of the negotiation path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, negotiation default risk cost, and resource occupation cost.

[0012] As an optional implementation, in the first aspect of the invention, the case judgment value is calculated based on capacity parameters, the cost of legal proceedings, and the cost of negotiation, including: The collected capacity parameters are mapped to obtain the capacity correction term through the capacity-to-executability mapping function; The allocation of capacity adjustment items, the value of legal action path, the value of negotiation path, and the completeness of case materials is based on the learnable weights of historical case parameters. The case judgment value is calculated by weighting and summing the capacity correction term, the value of the legal action path, the value of the negotiation path, and the completeness of the case materials using learnable weights.

[0013] As an optional implementation, in the first aspect of the present invention, determining the escalation plan for handling a case based on a judgment value and a task flow threshold includes: When the case determination value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is not less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgraded plan output is the legal procedure pre-trial plan. When the case judgment value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgrade plan output is the correction plan; If the case judgment value is less than the threshold of the legal action path, and the value of the negotiation path is less than the value of the legal action path, then the escalation plan output is the negotiation plan; otherwise, the escalation plan output is the postponement plan.

[0014] A second aspect of this invention discloses a case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment, the system comprising: The acquisition module is used to acquire case information and obtain the evidence chain field table through structured parsing. The construction module is used to build an evidence missing matrix based on the evidence chain field table, and to calculate the completeness of case data based on the evidence missing matrix; The path module is used to calculate the cost of the legal action path and the cost of the negotiation path based on the evidence missing matrix. The calculation module is used to collect the capacity parameters of legal litigation resources, and calculate the case judgment value based on the capacity parameters, the cost of legal litigation path, and the cost of negotiation path. The judgment module is used to determine the escalation plan for handling cases based on the judgment value and the task flow threshold.

[0015] As an optional implementation, in a second aspect of the present invention, the case handling data includes scanned copies, text files, business records, and external records that record information related to currently handled cases and historically handled cases; The evidence chain field table includes multiple field items, each of which includes a field value, field type, field source, and field expiration label; The field types include contract subject field, debt amount field, accounting record field, notification delivery field, identity verification field, address stability field, asset clue field, historical negotiation field, historical disposal field, and reminder record field; The capacity parameters include the current case digestibility, pre-litigation review capacity, remaining cost to be covered, case backlog, and regional enforcement difficulty. The capacity parameters are normalized to the range [0,1] to represent the capacity level.

[0016] As an optional implementation, in a second aspect of the invention, the evidence missing matrix is ​​represented as follows: , where the i-th row of element m corresponds to the i-th field item in the evidence chain field table, the j-th column represents the state dimension corresponding to the field item, and n is the total number of rows; The state dimensions include existence state, validity, temporal continuity, verifiability, and the level of impact of missing information; Specifically, the state mapping function is used to convert the field items in the evidence chain field table into matrix elements to construct an evidence missing matrix, which in turn represents the evidentiary characteristics of the case materials.

[0017] As an optional implementation, in a second aspect of the invention, calculating the completeness of case data based on an evidence missing matrix includes: The weighted calculation of the actual total missing score for all field items in the evidence missing matrix at each state dimension is performed. The theoretical maximum missing total score for all state dimensions is calculated by weighting the dimensional weights. The remaining ratio between the actual total missing score and the theoretical maximum total missing score is calculated to obtain the completeness of the case data.

[0018] As an optional implementation, in a second aspect of the invention, the cost of the litigation path is calculated according to the evidence deficiency matrix method, including: Based on the expected total litigation duration, time value rate, subject matter of the case, and time loss of all indirect loss categories determined by the legal proceedings field in the evidence missing matrix, the cyclical cost of the legal proceedings path is calculated. Based on the fields of historical litigation costs in the evidence missing matrix, the case acceptance cost, lawyer resource cost, third-party cost, and litigation basis cost are determined, and the resource cost of the litigation path is calculated. Based on the fields related to historical execution in the evidence missing matrix, the subject matter of the case, recovery rate, basic costs of legal proceedings, and risk of delayed performance are determined, and the risk costs of the legal proceedings path are calculated. The cost of supplementing evidence for the legal proceedings path is calculated by summing the weights of the field items and the state dimension in the evidence missing matrix. The cost of the legal proceedings path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, risk cost, and cost of supplementary evidence.

[0019] As an optional implementation, in a second aspect of the invention, calculating the negotiation path cost based on the evidence missing matrix includes: Determine the cycle cost and resource cost under the negotiation path based on the negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix; Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, the negotiation success rate and commitment fulfillment rate are determined, and the cost of negotiation default risk is calculated. Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, determine the total resource category of the negotiation path, the resource cost of each resource category, the period of continuous negotiation, the average cost of all resources, and the opportunity cost, and calculate the resource occupation cost. The cost of the negotiation path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, negotiation default risk cost, and resource occupation cost.

[0020] As an optional implementation, in a second aspect of the invention, the case judgment value is calculated based on capacity parameters, the cost of legal proceedings, and the cost of negotiation, including: The collected capacity parameters are mapped to obtain the capacity correction term through the capacity-to-executability mapping function; The allocation of capacity adjustment items, the value of legal action path, the value of negotiation path, and the completeness of case materials is based on the learnable weights of historical case parameters. The case judgment value is calculated by weighting and summing the capacity correction term, the value of the legal action path, the value of the negotiation path, and the completeness of the case materials using learnable weights.

[0021] As an optional implementation, in a second aspect of the invention, determining an escalation plan for handling a case based on a judgment value and a task flow threshold includes: When the case determination value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is not less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgraded plan output is the legal procedure pre-trial plan. When the case judgment value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgrade plan output is the correction plan; If the case judgment value is less than the threshold of the legal action path, and the value of the negotiation path is less than the value of the legal action path, then the escalation plan output is the negotiation plan; otherwise, the escalation plan output is the postponement plan.

[0022] A third aspect of this invention discloses another case escalation determination system for pre-trial legal assessment, the system comprising: Memory containing executable program code; A processor coupled to the memory; The processor calls the executable program code stored in the memory to execute some or all of the steps in the case escalation determination method for pre-litigation legal assessment disclosed in the first aspect of the present invention.

[0023] The fourth aspect of the present invention discloses a computer storage medium storing computer instructions, which, when invoked, are used to execute some or all of the steps in the case escalation determination method for pre-litigation legal assessment disclosed in the first aspect of the present invention.

[0024] Compared with the prior art, the embodiments of the present invention have the following beneficial effects: This invention constructs an evidence gap matrix based on an evidence chain field table obtained through structured analysis of case materials. This matrix-based individualized case analysis mechanism allows each type of special case to receive escalation path suggestions tailored to its specific characteristics. This presents a complete picture of the case's evidence and the distribution of gaps, quantifying the case's completeness. Simultaneously, based on the same evidence gap matrix, the costs of pursuing legal action and negotiation are calculated separately. This ensures that escalation decisions no longer rely on simple judgments but are the result of a comprehensive weighing of case conditions, legal costs, and alternative solutions. This guarantees that the final path, under multi-dimensional constraints, effectively utilizes the triggering conditions of the case materials, providing... Accurate case escalation path determination enables precise quantification of differences in evidence completeness, asset clue strength, and negotiation potential among different cases. This avoids the shortcomings of misjudgment due to a lack of differentiated judgment in handling cases. By introducing the legal resource capacity parameter, together with the legal and legal substitution value and the negotiation substitution value, the case judgment value is calculated. The escalation plan is determined by comparing the judgment value with the task flow threshold. This transforms cross-team judgment based on human experience into automatic and stable decision-making based on unified quantitative indicators and resource constraints. It can eliminate the impact of personal experience bias and differences in judgment standards between teams on decision consistency, thereby achieving standardized, large-scale, and stable processing of escalation path determination for a large number of cases. Attached Figure Description

[0025] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the accompanying drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0026] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining the escalation of a case based on a pre-litigation assessment disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0027] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0028] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of another case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0029] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the present invention, the technical solutions of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings of the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0030] The terms "first," "second," etc., used in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings of this invention are used to distinguish different objects, not to describe a specific order. Furthermore, the terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, apparatus, product, or device that includes a series of steps or units is not limited to the listed steps or units, but may optionally include steps or units not listed, or may optionally include other steps or units inherent to these processes, methods, products, or devices.

[0031] In this document, the term "embodiment" means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with an embodiment may be included in at least one embodiment of the invention. The appearance of this phrase in various places throughout the specification does not necessarily refer to the same embodiment, nor is it a separate or alternative embodiment mutually exclusive with other embodiments. It will be explicitly and implicitly understood by those skilled in the art that the embodiments described herein can be combined with other embodiments.

[0032] This invention discloses a method and system for determining case escalation in pre-litigation legal assessment. Based on an evidence chain field table obtained through structured analysis of case materials, an evidence deficiency matrix is ​​constructed. This matrix-based individualized case analysis mechanism allows each type of special case to receive escalation path suggestions matching its actual characteristics, thus presenting a complete picture of the case's evidence and the distribution of gaps. Furthermore, the completeness of the case is quantified based on this. Simultaneously, based on the same evidence deficiency matrix, the costs of pursuing legal action and negotiation paths are calculated separately. This ensures that escalation decisions no longer rely on simple judgments but are the result of a comprehensive weighing of case conditions, legal costs, and alternative solutions, guaranteeing that the final path can be effectively utilized under multi-dimensional constraints. The case data triggering conditions provide accurate case escalation path determination, enabling precise quantification of differences in evidence completeness, asset clue strength, and negotiation potential among different cases. This avoids the shortcomings of misjudgment due to a lack of differentiated judgment in case handling. By introducing the legal resource capacity parameter, along with the legal and negotiation substitution value, a case judgment value is calculated. The escalation plan is determined by comparing the judgment value with the task flow threshold. This transforms cross-team judgment relying on human experience into automatic and stable decision-making based on unified quantitative indicators and resource constraints. It can eliminate the impact of individual experience bias and differences in judgment standards between teams on decision consistency, thereby achieving standardized, scalable, and stable processing of escalation path determination for a large number of cases. Detailed explanations follow.

[0033] Example 1 Please see Figure 1 , Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a method for determining case escalation based on pre-litigation legal assessment, as disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention. Figure 1 The described method for determining case escalation based on pre-trial legal assessment can be applied to data processing systems / data processing equipment / data processing servers (including local processing servers or cloud processing servers). For example... Figure 1 As shown, this method for determining case escalation based on pre-trial legal assessment may include the following steps: 101. Obtain case information and obtain the evidence chain field table through structured parsing.

[0034] It should be noted that the disposal cases refer to situations where the debtor's non-performing assets arise from overdue payments, and the creditor needs to dispose of them. The disposal methods can be through legal proceedings, negotiation, or other means.

[0035] Optionally, case handling materials may include scanned copies, text files, business records, and external records that record information related to currently handled cases and historically handled cases.

[0036] Optionally, structured parsing can involve preprocessing the case data and then extracting content using pre-defined field templates.

[0037] Optionally, the evidence chain field table includes multiple field items, each of which includes a field value, field type, field source, and field expiration label.

[0038] As an example, the evidence chain field table can be represented as follows: Each field item can be represented as: ,in Indicates the field value. Indicates the field type. Indicates the source of the field. This indicates the expiration date label for the field.

[0039] Optionally, the field types include contract subject field, debt amount field, accounting record field, notification delivery field, identity verification field, address stability field, asset clue field, historical negotiation field, historical disposal field, and reminder record field (record field for repayment reminders of bad assets). Among them, the fields involving amount and privacy have all been authorized to obtain information and have been anonymized as the decision data basis for the judgment method.

[0040] Optionally, the historical negotiation field and the historical disposal field may include case negotiation records, case performance records, commitment fulfillment rate, debtor contact frequency, historical negotiation costs, historical negotiation cycle, historical litigation cycle, historical litigation costs, historical enforcement risks, historical enforcement results, and historical recovery rate.

[0041] Furthermore, to reduce noise in structured parsing, the reliability of field extraction can be calculated. The calculation process can be expressed as follows: This will increase credibility. Fields that are below the threshold are marked as fields to be reviewed for subsequent verification.

[0042] 102. Construct an evidence missing matrix based on the evidence chain field table, and calculate the completeness of case materials based on the evidence missing matrix.

[0043] Optional, evidence missing matrix It can be defined as: , where the i-th row of element m corresponds to the i-th field item in the evidence chain field table, the j-th column represents the state dimension corresponding to the field item, and n is the total number of rows.

[0044] Optionally, the status of a field item includes existence, validity, temporal continuity, verifiability, and the level of impact of missing items.

[0045] As an example, the matrix elements in the evidence missing matrix are represented as follows: ,in, This represents the state mapping function used to calculate the j-th dimension state value based on the i-th field item of the evidence chain field table. This represents the weight of the j-th dimension.

[0046] Furthermore, regarding the existence state dimension, when a field value in the evidence chain field table is empty or not extracted, it can be set as follows: .

[0047] Furthermore, regarding the validity status dimension, when a field exists but its status has expired or conflicts with other fields, it can be set as follows: ; In the formula, This indicates that the validity of the indicator function is only 1 if both conditions are met. Indicates the credibility threshold. Indicates the current time. Indicates the timestamp of the field update. This indicates the preset validity period.

[0048] Furthermore, for the state dimension with temporal continuity, its state mapping function can be expressed as: ; In the formula, Indicates an indicator function, Indicates the timestamp of the field update. Indicates the timestamp of the previous moment. Indicates the current time. This indicates the maximum time interval.

[0049] Furthermore, for the verifiability of the state dimension, its state mapping function can be expressed as: ; In the formula, This indicates the source of the i-th field item. The validation value (which can be a hash value) represents the source of the field. This indicates that the verification value has been checked. Indicates the signature status of the field's source. Indicates the status of the chain of evidence.

[0050] Furthermore, for the state dimension with missing influence levels, its state mapping function can be expressed as: ; In the formula, This indicates the preset importance coefficient of the field.

[0051] 103. Calculate the value of the legal action path and the value of the negotiation path based on the evidence missing matrix.

[0052] 104. Collect the capacity parameters of legal litigation resources, and calculate the case judgment value based on the capacity parameters, the value of legal litigation path, and the value of negotiation path.

[0053] Optionally, the capacity parameters of legal litigation resources include the legal litigation team's ability to handle current cases, pre-litigation review capacity, remaining cost to cover, case backlog, and regional enforcement difficulty. All capacity parameters are normalized to the range of [0,1] and expressed as numerical values ​​to represent the capacity level.

[0054] As an example, the capacity parameter of legal proceedings resources can be expressed as: ; In the formula, Q represents the capacity parameter. This indicates the legal team's ability to handle the current cases. Indicates the capacity for pre-litigation review. This indicates the margin that can cover the costs. Indicates the degree of case backlog. This indicates the difficulty of implementation in a particular region.

[0055] 105. Determine the escalation plan for handling cases based on the judgment value and task flow threshold.

[0056] Optional upgrade options include a preliminary legal hearing, a request for additional documentation, a negotiation, and a postponement.

[0057] Optionally, the task flow threshold includes the legal proceedings path threshold. and the threshold for completeness of evidence The thresholds for legal proceedings and evidence completeness are dynamically set based on the evidence deficiency matrix of historical cases and the execution results of escalation plans to meet actual handling needs.

[0058] As can be seen, the above-described embodiments of the invention construct an evidence missing matrix based on the evidence chain field table obtained from the structured analysis of case materials. This matrix-based individualized case analysis mechanism allows each type of special case to obtain an escalation path suggestion that matches its actual characteristics, thus presenting a complete picture of the case evidence and the distribution of gaps. Furthermore, it quantifies the completeness of the case and calculates the costs of pursuing both legal action and negotiation paths based on the same evidence missing matrix. This ensures that escalation decisions no longer rely on simple judgments but are the result of a comprehensive weighing of case conditions, legal action costs, and alternative solutions. This guarantees that the final path can effectively utilize the triggering conditions of the case materials under multi-dimensional constraints. It provides accurate case escalation path determination, enabling precise quantification of differences in evidence completeness, asset clue strength, and negotiation potential among different cases. This avoids the shortcomings of misjudgment due to a lack of differentiated judgment in handling cases. By introducing the legal resource capacity parameter, it calculates the case determination value together with the legal and negotiation substitution value, and determines the escalation plan by comparing the determination value with the task flow threshold. It transforms cross-team judgment based on human experience into automatic and stable decision-making based on unified quantitative indicators and resource constraints. This can eliminate the impact of personal experience bias and differences in judgment standards between teams on decision consistency, thereby achieving standardized, large-scale, and stable processing of escalation path determination for a large number of cases.

[0059] As an optional embodiment, the step of calculating the completeness of case data based on the evidence missing matrix in the above steps includes: The weighted calculation of the actual total missing score for all field items in the evidence missing matrix at each state dimension is performed. The theoretical maximum missing total score for all state dimensions is calculated by weighting the dimensional weights. The remaining ratio between the actual total missing score and the theoretical maximum total missing score is calculated to obtain the completeness of the case data.

[0060] As an example, the completeness of case data is calculated by expressing the various state dimensions of the field items through an evidence missing matrix, where the formula for calculating the completeness is as follows: ; In the formula, Indicates the completeness of the case materials. This represents the elements in the missing evidence matrix. Let represent the weight of the j-th dimension, where the numerator represents the actual total missing score of all field items in each state dimension, the denominator represents the theoretical maximum total missing score of all state dimensions, and 1 minus the fractional term represents the remaining proportion.

[0061] As an optional embodiment, the step of calculating the cost of the legal action path based on the evidence deficiency matrix in the above steps includes: Based on the expected total litigation duration, time value rate, subject matter of the case, and time loss of all indirect loss categories determined by the fields in the evidence missing matrix, the cyclical cost of the legal action path is calculated. Based on the fields of historical litigation costs in the evidence missing matrix, the case acceptance cost, lawyer resource cost, third-party cost, and litigation basis cost are determined, and the resource cost of the litigation path is calculated. Based on the fields related to historical execution in the evidence missing matrix, the subject matter of the case, recovery rate, basic costs of legal proceedings, and risk of delayed performance are determined, and the risk costs of the legal proceedings path are calculated. The cost of supplementing evidence for the legal proceedings path is calculated by summing the weights of the field items and the state dimension in the evidence missing matrix. The cost of the legal proceedings path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, risk cost, and cost of supplementary evidence.

[0062] As an example, the value of the legal action path can be expressed as: ; In the formula, The value of the legal litigation path is indicated. The cyclical costs under the legal action path, The resource costs under the legal litigation path, Indicate the risks and costs of legal proceedings. This represents the cost of supplementary evidence calculated based on the evidence missing matrix.

[0063] Optionally, the cyclical cost under the legal action path can be expressed as: ; in, This indicates the estimated total duration of the litigation, determined based on the field item of the historical litigation cycle in the evidence missing matrix. This represents the time value rate and can be preset according to the business cycle. The subject matter of the case can be determined based on the field items in the debt amount field. This represents the time cost of the k-th indirect loss category, where K represents the total number of indirect loss categories, which can be determined based on the fields related to historical legal costs.

[0064] Optionally, the resource cost under the legal action path can be expressed as: ; in, This indicates the cost of accepting the case. This indicates the cost of legal resources. Indicates the cost of third-party resources. The basic costs of legal proceedings can be determined based on the fields of historical legal proceedings costs.

[0065] Optionally, the risk cost of the legal action route can be expressed as: ; in, Indicates the subject matter of the case. This indicates the predicted recovery rate, which can be determined based on the fields representing historical recovery rates. The cost of legal proceedings can be determined based on the fields associated with the subject matter of execution in historical execution results. The risk of delayed performance can be determined by associating historical performance risks with historical performance results.

[0066] Optionally, the cost of rectification under the legal action route can be expressed as: ; The cost of correction is determined by the field items in the element containing missing evidence. Weights with the state dimension The result is obtained by cumulative calculation.

[0067] As an optional embodiment, the step of calculating the negotiation path cost based on the evidence missing matrix in the above steps includes: Determine the cycle cost and resource cost under the negotiation path based on the negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix; Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, the negotiation success rate and commitment fulfillment rate are determined, and the cost of negotiation default risk is calculated. Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, determine the total resource category of the negotiation path, the resource cost of each resource category, the period of continuous negotiation, the average cost of all resources, and the opportunity cost, and calculate the resource occupation cost. The cost of the negotiation path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, negotiation default risk cost, and resource occupation cost.

[0068] As an example, the cost of the negotiation path can be expressed as: ; in, This indicates the value of the negotiation path. This represents the periodic cost under the negotiation path. This indicates the resource cost under the negotiation path. Indicates the cost of default risk, This indicates the cost of resource consumption during ongoing negotiations.

[0069] Optionally, the calculation of the cycle cost and resource cost under the negotiation path is similar to that under the legal action path. It can be determined by including the field items corresponding to the historical negotiation cycle and the historical negotiation field, or it can be directly determined by the field items of the historical negotiation cost. This will not be elaborated further in this embodiment.

[0070] Optionally, the cost of negotiated default risk under the negotiation path can be expressed as: ; in, The success rate of negotiations can be determined based on the fields in the historical negotiation section that contain case negotiation records. This indicates the fulfillment rate of commitments, which can be determined based on the historical commitment fulfillment rate field in the historical negotiation field.

[0071] Optionally, the resource cost of continuous negotiation under the negotiation path can be expressed as: ; in, This indicates the total number of resource categories under the negotiation path. Indicates the resource category under the negotiation path. Indicates the first The total number of resource categories, Indicates the first Resource costs for each resource category This indicates the duration of ongoing negotiations, which can be determined based on the negotiation duration in the historical negotiation field. This represents the average cost of using all resource categories. This represents the opportunity cost, which can be determined by estimating the revenue from resource usage based on the field items in the historical negotiation field that contain case negotiation records.

[0072] As an optional embodiment, the step above, calculating the case judgment value based on capacity parameters, the cost of legal proceedings, and the cost of negotiation, includes: The collected capacity parameters are mapped to obtain the capacity correction term through the capacity-to-executability mapping function; The allocation of capacity adjustment items, the value of legal action path, the value of negotiation path, and the completeness of case materials is based on the learnable weights of historical case parameters. The case judgment value is calculated by weighting and summing the capacity correction term, the value of the legal action path, the value of the negotiation path, and the completeness of the case materials using learnable weights.

[0073] As an example, the calculation of the case judgment value can be expressed as follows: ; In the formula, This indicates the value of the negotiation path. The value of the legal litigation path is indicated. Indicates the completeness of the case materials. Represents capacity parameters The capacity adjustment term is obtained through the mapping between capacity and executability. , , , These are the learnable weights corresponding to each term in the formula, which can be adjusted using historical case data.

[0074] As an optional embodiment, the step above, determining the escalation plan for handling the case based on the judgment value and the task flow threshold, includes: When the case determination value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is not less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgraded plan output is the legal procedure pre-trial plan. When the case judgment value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgrade plan output is the correction plan; If the case judgment value is less than the threshold of the legal action path, and the value of the negotiation path is less than the value of the legal action path, then the escalation plan output is the negotiation plan; otherwise, the escalation plan output is the postponement plan.

[0075] In summary, the technical solutions disclosed in the embodiments of the present invention have the following advantages: 1. More comprehensive and accurate assessment: Improve the screening accuracy of pre-litigation assessment.

[0076] 2. Rational allocation of resources: Reduce the proportion of legal resources used for low-value cases.

[0077] 3. Timeliness of judgment: Improve the timeliness of escalation of high-value cases.

[0078] 4. Consistency in review: Reduce discrepancies in manual review and provide a specific review framework.

[0079] 5. Review and standardization: Enhance the enforceability and replicability of pre-litigation judgments.

[0080] Example 2 Please see Figure 2 , Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment disclosed in an embodiment of the present invention. Figure 2 The described case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment can be applied to data processing systems / data processing devices / data processing servers (including local processing servers or cloud processing servers). For example... Figure 2As shown, this case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment may include: The acquisition module is used to acquire case information and obtain the evidence chain field table through structured parsing. The construction module is used to build an evidence missing matrix based on the evidence chain field table, and to calculate the completeness of case data based on the evidence missing matrix; The path module is used to calculate the cost of the legal action path and the cost of the negotiation path based on the evidence missing matrix. The calculation module is used to collect the capacity parameters of legal litigation resources, and calculate the case judgment value based on the capacity parameters, the cost of legal litigation path, and the cost of negotiation path. The judgment module is used to determine the escalation plan for handling cases based on the judgment value and the task flow threshold.

[0081] As can be seen, the above-described embodiments of the invention construct an evidence missing matrix based on the evidence chain field table obtained from the structured analysis of case materials. This matrix-based individualized case analysis mechanism allows each type of special case to obtain an escalation path suggestion that matches its actual characteristics, thus presenting a complete picture of the case evidence and the distribution of gaps. Furthermore, it quantifies the completeness of the case and calculates the costs of pursuing both legal action and negotiation paths based on the same evidence missing matrix. This ensures that escalation decisions no longer rely on simple judgments but are the result of a comprehensive weighing of case conditions, legal action costs, and alternative solutions. This guarantees that the final path can effectively utilize the triggering conditions of the case materials under multi-dimensional constraints. It provides accurate case escalation path determination, enabling precise quantification of differences in evidence completeness, asset clue strength, and negotiation potential among different cases. This avoids the shortcomings of misjudgment due to a lack of differentiated judgment in handling cases. By introducing the legal resource capacity parameter, it calculates the case determination value together with the legal and negotiation substitution value, and determines the escalation plan by comparing the determination value with the task flow threshold. It transforms cross-team judgment based on human experience into automatic and stable decision-making based on unified quantitative indicators and resource constraints. This can eliminate the impact of personal experience bias and differences in judgment standards between teams on decision consistency, thereby achieving standardized, large-scale, and stable processing of escalation path determination for a large number of cases.

[0082] As an optional embodiment, calculating the completeness of case materials based on the evidence missing matrix includes: The weighted calculation of the actual total missing score for all field items in the evidence missing matrix at each state dimension is performed. The theoretical maximum missing total score for all state dimensions is calculated by weighting the dimensional weights. The remaining ratio between the actual total missing score and the theoretical maximum total missing score is calculated to obtain the completeness of the case data.

[0083] As an optional embodiment, the cost of the litigation path is calculated based on the evidence deficiency matrix, including: Based on the expected total litigation duration, time value rate, subject matter of the case, and time loss of all indirect loss categories determined by the legal proceedings field in the evidence missing matrix, the cyclical cost of the legal proceedings path is calculated. Based on the fields of historical litigation costs in the evidence missing matrix, the case acceptance cost, lawyer resource cost, third-party cost, and litigation basis cost are determined, and the resource cost of the litigation path is calculated. Based on the fields related to historical execution in the evidence missing matrix, the subject matter of the case, recovery rate, basic costs of legal proceedings, and risk of delayed performance are determined, and the risk costs of the legal proceedings path are calculated. The cost of supplementing evidence for the legal proceedings path is calculated by summing the weights of the field items and the state dimension in the evidence missing matrix. The cost of the legal proceedings path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, risk cost, and cost of supplementary evidence.

[0084] As an optional embodiment, calculating the cost of the negotiation path based on the evidence missing matrix includes: Determine the cycle cost and resource cost under the negotiation path based on the negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix; Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, the negotiation success rate and commitment fulfillment rate are determined, and the cost of negotiation default risk is calculated. Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, determine the total resource category of the negotiation path, the resource cost of each resource category, the period of continuous negotiation, the average cost of all resources, and the opportunity cost, and calculate the resource occupation cost. The cost of the negotiation path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, negotiation default risk cost, and resource occupation cost.

[0085] As an optional embodiment, the case judgment value is calculated based on capacity parameters, the cost of legal proceedings, and the cost of negotiation, including: The collected capacity parameters are mapped to obtain the capacity correction term through the capacity-to-executability mapping function; The allocation of capacity adjustment items, the value of legal action path, the value of negotiation path, and the completeness of case materials is based on the learnable weights of historical case parameters. The case judgment value is calculated by weighting and summing the capacity correction term, the value of the legal action path, the value of the negotiation path, and the completeness of the case materials using learnable weights.

[0086] As an optional embodiment, the escalation plan for handling a case is determined based on the judgment value and the task flow threshold, including: When the case determination value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is not less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgraded plan output is the legal procedure pre-trial plan. When the case judgment value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgrade plan output is the correction plan; If the case judgment value is less than the threshold of the legal action path, and the value of the negotiation path is less than the value of the legal action path, then the escalation plan output is the negotiation plan; otherwise, the escalation plan output is the postponement plan.

[0087] Example 3 Please see Figure 3 , Figure 3 This is another case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment disclosed in the embodiments of the present invention. Figure 3 The described case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment is applied in a data processing system / data processing equipment / data processing server (wherein, the server includes a local processing server or a cloud processing server). For example... Figure 3 As shown, this case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment may include: Memory 301 storing executable program code; Processor 302 coupled to memory 301; The processor 302 calls the executable program code stored in the memory 301 to execute the steps of the case escalation determination method for pre-litigation legal assessment described in Embodiment 1.

[0088] Example 4 This invention discloses a computer read storage medium that stores a computer program for electronic data interchange, wherein the computer program causes a computer to execute the steps of the case escalation determination method for pre-trial legal assessment described in Embodiment 1.

[0089] Example 5 This invention discloses a computer program product, which includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, and the computer program is operable to cause a computer to perform the steps of the case escalation determination method for pre-trial legal assessment described in Embodiment 1.

[0090] The foregoing has described specific embodiments of this specification; other embodiments are within the scope of the appended claims. In some cases, the actions or steps described in the claims may be performed in a different order than those shown in the embodiments and may still achieve the desired result. Furthermore, the processes depicted in the drawings do not necessarily have to follow the specific or sequential order shown to achieve the desired result. In some embodiments, multitasking and parallel processing are also possible or may be advantageous.

[0091] The systems, devices, modules, or units described in the above embodiments can be implemented by computer chips or entities, or by products with certain functions. A typical implementation device is a computer. Specifically, a computer can be, for example, a personal computer, laptop computer, cellular phone, camera phone, smartphone, personal digital assistant, media player, navigation device, email device, game console, tablet computer, wearable device, or any combination of these devices.

[0092] For ease of description, the above devices are described in terms of function, divided into various units. Of course, in implementing this specification, the functions of each unit can be implemented in one or more software and / or hardware.

[0093] Those skilled in the art will understand that the embodiments of this specification can be provided as methods, systems, or computer program products. Therefore, the embodiments of this specification can take the form of a completely hardware embodiment, a completely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, the embodiments of this specification can take the form of a computer program product implemented on one or more computer-usable storage media (including, but not limited to, disk storage, CD-ROM, optical storage, etc.) containing computer-usable program code.

[0094] This specification is described with reference to flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of this specification. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, embedded processor, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create a machine for implementing the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams. Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A device that provides the functions specified in one or more boxes.

[0095] These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium produce an article of manufacture including instruction means, which are implemented in a process Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The function specified in one or more boxes.

[0096] These computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing equipment to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable equipment to produce a computer-implemented process, thereby providing instructions that execute on the computer or other programmable equipment for implementing the process. Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The steps of the function specified in one or more boxes.

[0097] In a typical configuration, a computing device includes one or more processors (CPU), input / output interfaces, network interfaces, and memory.

[0098] Memory may include non-persistent storage in computer-readable media, such as random access memory (RAM) and / or non-volatile memory, such as read-only memory (ROM) or flash RAM. Memory is an example of computer-readable media.

[0099] Computer-readable media includes both permanent and non-permanent, removable and non-removable media that can store information using any method or technology. Information can be computer-readable instructions, data structures, modules of programs, or other data. Examples of computer storage media include, but are not limited to, phase-change memory (PRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), dynamic random access memory (DRAM), other types of random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technologies, CD-ROM, digital versatile optical disc (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other non-transferable medium that can be used to store information accessible by a computing device. As defined herein, computer-readable media does not include transient computer-readable media, such as modulated data signals and carrier waves.

[0100] It should also be noted that the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitation, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes said element.

[0101] This specification can be described in the general context of computer-executable instructions that are executed by a computer, such as program modules. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc., that perform a specific task or implement a specific abstract data type. This specification can also be practiced in distributed computing environments, where tasks are performed by remote processing devices connected via a communication network. In distributed computing environments, program modules can reside in local and remote computer storage media, including storage devices.

[0102] The various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner. Similar or identical parts between embodiments can be referred to interchangeably. Each embodiment focuses on describing the differences from other embodiments. In particular, the system embodiments are basically similar to the method embodiments, so the description is relatively simple; relevant parts can be referred to the descriptions in the method embodiments.

[0103] Finally, it should be noted that the case escalation determination method and system for pre-litigation assessment disclosed in the embodiments of the present invention are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention, and are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, not to limit it; although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features; and these modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for determining case escalation based on pre-litigation legal assessment, characterized in that, The method includes: Obtain case information and obtain the evidence chain field table through structured parsing; Construct an evidence missing matrix based on the evidence chain field table, and calculate the completeness of case materials based on the evidence missing matrix; Calculate the cost of the legal action path and the cost of the negotiation path based on the evidence missing matrix. The capacity parameters of legal litigation resources are collected, and the case judgment value is calculated based on the capacity parameters, the value of legal litigation path, and the value of negotiation path. The escalation plan for handling cases is determined based on the judgment value and the task flow threshold.

2. The method for determining case escalation based on pre-litigation legal assessment according to claim 1, characterized in that, The case handling materials include scanned copies, text copies, business records, and external records that record information related to currently handled cases and historical cases. The evidence chain field table includes multiple field items, each of which includes a field value, field type, field source, and field expiration label; The field types include contract subject field, debt amount field, accounting record field, notification delivery field, identity verification field, address stability field, asset clue field, historical negotiation field, historical disposal field, and reminder record field; The capacity parameters include the current case digestibility, pre-litigation review capacity, remaining cost to be covered, case backlog, and regional enforcement difficulty. The capacity parameters are normalized to the range [0,1] to represent the capacity level.

3. The case escalation determination method based on pre-litigation legal assessment according to claim 2, characterized in that, The evidence missing matrix is ​​represented as follows: , where the i-th row of element m corresponds to the i-th field item in the evidence chain field table, the j-th column represents the state dimension corresponding to the field item, and n is the total number of rows; The state dimensions include existence state, validity, temporal continuity, verifiability, and the level of impact of missing information; Specifically, the state mapping function is used to convert the field items in the evidence chain field table into matrix elements to construct an evidence missing matrix, which in turn represents the evidentiary characteristics of the case materials.

4. The method for determining case escalation based on pre-litigation legal assessment according to claim 3, characterized in that, The completeness of case materials is calculated based on the evidence missing matrix, including: The weighted calculation of the actual total missing score for all field items in the evidence missing matrix at each state dimension is performed. The theoretical maximum missing total score for all state dimensions is calculated by weighting the dimensional weights. The remaining ratio between the actual total missing score and the theoretical maximum total missing score is calculated to obtain the completeness of the case data.

5. The case escalation determination method based on pre-litigation legal assessment according to claim 3, characterized in that, The value of a litigation path calculated using the evidence deficiency matrix includes: Based on the expected total litigation duration, time value rate, subject matter of the case, and time loss of all indirect loss categories determined by the legal proceedings field in the evidence missing matrix, the cyclical cost of the legal proceedings path is calculated. Based on the fields of historical litigation costs in the evidence missing matrix, the case acceptance cost, lawyer resource cost, third-party cost, and litigation basis cost are determined, and the resource cost of the litigation path is calculated. Based on the fields related to historical execution in the evidence missing matrix, the subject matter of the case, recovery rate, basic costs of legal proceedings, and risk of delayed performance are determined, and the risk costs of the legal proceedings path are calculated. The cost of supplementing evidence for the legal proceedings path is calculated by summing the weights of the field items and the state dimension in the evidence missing matrix. The cost of the legal proceedings path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, risk cost, and cost of supplementary evidence.

6. The case escalation determination method based on pre-litigation legal assessment according to claim 3, characterized in that, The cost of the negotiation path is calculated based on the evidence missing matrix, including: Determine the cycle cost and resource cost under the negotiation path based on the negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix; Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, the negotiation success rate and commitment fulfillment rate are determined, and the cost of negotiation default risk is calculated. Based on the historical negotiation field items in the evidence missing matrix, determine the total resource category of the negotiation path, the resource cost of each resource category, the period of continuous negotiation, the average cost of all resources, and the opportunity cost, and calculate the resource occupation cost. The cost of the negotiation path is calculated by weighting and summing the periodic cost, resource cost, negotiation default risk cost, and resource occupation cost.

7. The case escalation determination method based on pre-litigation legal assessment according to claim 3, characterized in that, The case judgment value is calculated based on capacity parameters, the value of legal proceedings, and the value of negotiation, including: The collected capacity parameters are mapped to obtain the capacity correction term through the capacity-to-executability mapping function; The allocation of capacity adjustment items, the value of legal action path, the value of negotiation path, and the completeness of case materials is based on the learnable weights of historical case parameters. The case judgment value is calculated by weighting and summing the capacity correction term, the value of the legal action path, the value of the negotiation path, and the completeness of the case materials using learnable weights.

8. The method for determining case escalation based on pre-litigation legal assessment according to claim 7, characterized in that, The escalation plan for handling cases is determined based on the judgment value and the task flow threshold, including: When the case determination value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is not less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgraded plan output is the legal procedure pre-trial plan. When the case judgment value is not less than the legal procedure path threshold and the completeness of the case materials is less than the evidence completeness threshold, the upgrade plan output is the correction plan; If the case judgment value is less than the threshold of the legal action path, and the value of the negotiation path is less than the value of the legal action path, then the escalation plan output is the negotiation plan; otherwise, the escalation plan output is the postponement plan.

9. A case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment, characterized in that, The system includes: The acquisition module is used to acquire case information and obtain the evidence chain field table through structured parsing. The construction module is used to build an evidence missing matrix based on the evidence chain field table, and to calculate the completeness of case data based on the evidence missing matrix; The path module is used to calculate the cost of the legal action path and the cost of the negotiation path based on the evidence missing matrix. The calculation module is used to collect the capacity parameters of legal litigation resources, and calculate the case judgment value based on the capacity parameters, the cost of legal litigation path, and the cost of negotiation path. The judgment module is used to determine the escalation plan for handling cases based on the judgment value and the task flow threshold.

10. A case escalation determination system for pre-litigation legal assessment, characterized in that, The system includes: Memory containing executable program code; A processor coupled to the memory; The processor calls the executable program code stored in the memory to execute the case escalation determination method for pre-litigation legal assessment as described in any one of claims 1-8.

Images