Statutory Interpreter

---
name: statutory-interpreter
description: Interprets a specific statutory provision using the recognised canons of interpretation — textual, structural, purposive, and any specific canon whose structural trigger is actually present — checking first whether existing authority already construes the provision, and showing every step of the reasoning rather than asserting a conclusion. Use this whenever a user needs a provision actually interpreted, not just read — including phrasings like "interpret this provision using the accepted canons", "does the ordinary meaning support this reading", "walk through how a court would construe this section", or "is there a stronger interpretive argument for the other reading". Fires for any statutory interpretation question, in any jurisdiction — never assumes a jurisdiction's specific interpretive methodology or canon hierarchy without confirming it.
---

# Statutory Interpreter

## What this does

Interprets a specific statutory provision using the recognised canons of interpretation, showing the reasoning transparently at every step rather than asserting a conclusion and working backward to justify it. It checks first whether existing authority already construes the specific provision — if courts have already interpreted it, that is the primary source and this skill applies it rather than reconstructing an interpretation from first principles as though no authority existed. Every canon applied is named, and applied only where its actual structural trigger is present in this provision, not invoked generically because it is a familiar tool.

## Before you start

**The provision's exact text and the specific interpretive question** — what is actually ambiguous or contested about it, applied to specific facts if relevant. Blocking; interpretation cannot proceed from a paraphrase of the text.

**Governing jurisdiction.** Which canons are recognised, and how they are prioritised relative to each other, varies by legal system — a common-law purposive approach and a civil-law systematic approach are not the same method, and even within common-law systems the accepted hierarchy of canons differs. Do not assume a specific jurisdiction's interpretive methodology without confirming it.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **whether research tools or case law on this specific provision's interpretation are available.** If precedent already construes this exact provision, that is the primary source and should be applied rather than treated as optional context.

## Method

**1. State the provision's exact text and the specific interpretive question precisely** — what is actually ambiguous or contested, not a general description of the topic.

**2. Check first whether existing authority already interprets this specific provision.** If sourced material shows courts have already construed it, apply and report that construction as the primary source rather than reconstructing an interpretation from first principles as though no authority existed. Flag plainly if this check has not actually been done.

**3. Apply the plain or textual meaning canon first.** What does the ordinary meaning of the words yield, including checking any statutory definitions section for terms actually used in this provision.

**4. Apply structural and contextual canons.** How the provision fits within its section, its chapter, and the statute as a whole; whether reading it one way creates surplusage, contradiction, or an absurd result elsewhere in the statute.

**5. Apply purposive interpretation only with a purpose actually sourced** — from a preamble, a statement of objects and reasons, or established case law on the statute's purpose. Do not invent a plausible-sounding purpose that is not actually evidenced.

**6. Apply a specific interpretive canon only where its structural trigger is actually present in this provision** — ejusdem generis where a list is followed by a general term, expressio unius, noscitur a sociis, or another. Name the canon and state precisely why its trigger is present here; do not invoke a canon generically as a rhetorical flourish.

**7. Where legislative history is available, use it as supporting evidence for purpose, kept visibly distinguished from the textual and structural analysis** — or point to legislative-history-analyst if a fuller trace is wanted first.

**8. Show each step of the reasoning in the order it was applied, rather than jumping straight to a conclusion.** The entire value of this skill is the visible reasoning chain; a bare conclusion, however correct, does not deliver it.

**9. State the conclusion with an honest confidence level.** Some interpretive questions have one answer that is clearly correct under the applicable canons; others are genuinely contested. The analysis should reflect which kind of question this actually is.

**10. State the competing interpretation and why the canons favour the preferred reading over it**, rather than presenting only the winning argument as though no other reading was ever plausible.

## Output

**1. Header.** Provision (exact text), the interpretive question, jurisdiction, date, and whether existing authority on this specific provision was checked.

**2. Existing authority**, if found — reported and applied as the primary source.

**3. Textual and plain-meaning analysis.**

**4. Structural and contextual analysis.**

**5. Purposive analysis**, only with a sourced purpose.

**6. Specific canons applied.** Named, with the reasoning for why each one's trigger is present in this provision.

**7. Legislative history**, if used, kept visibly distinct and sourced.

**8. Competing interpretation.** Stated and addressed, not omitted.

**9. Conclusion.** Stated with an honest confidence level.

**10. Points requiring verification.** Anything not sourced — purpose, legislative history, or existing authority not fully checked.

## Do not

Do not skip checking for existing authority interpreting this specific provision before reconstructing an interpretation from first principles.

Do not invent a legislative purpose that is not actually sourced.

Do not invoke an interpretive canon generically without showing why its specific structural trigger is present in this provision.

Do not present only the winning interpretation without addressing the competing one.

Do not assert a specific jurisdiction's interpretive methodology or canon hierarchy without confirming it applies.

Do not jump to a conclusion without showing the reasoning chain that leads to it.