Compare Investigation Memorandum Against Applicable Statutes

---
name: statutory-gap-analysis-internal-investigation-memo
task_id: white-collar-defense-investigations/compare-investigation-memorandum-against-applicable-statutes
description: Statutory gap analysis of an internal investigation memorandum, identifying legal errors where the memo misstates scienter requirements, omits required statutory elements, or fails to analyze nexus elements that the underlying facts clearly establish.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Statutory Gap Analysis of an Internal Investigation Memorandum

## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Identify every statutory or regulatory theory the memorandum actually analyzes, then identify any additional theories clearly implicated by the facts and record.
- Treat Board-facing work as completeness-sensitive: the goal is not only to find errors, but to surface any lower-threshold theory the memo leaves out that could affect exposure, oversight, or remediation.
- If the record points to only one plausible provision, say so; do not force a multi-theory analysis where the facts do not support it.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- The memorandum states an inflated mental-state requirement for a provision that does not require it, causing under-assessment of exposure.
- The memorandum omits an element that is central to liability, such as a transaction nexus, a regulated-instrument link, or a subsection-specific condition, even though the facts in the file appear to establish it.
- The memorandum collapses distinct statutory subsections into one generalized analysis and thereby misses a lower-threshold or strict-liability path.
- The memorandum analyzes only the most obvious anti-fraud theory and ignores other provisions triggered by the same facts.
- The memorandum reaches a conclusion without tying the legal standard back to the factual record and the interacting documents.
- The memorandum is too conclusory for Board use because it does not identify what legal exposure remains if the stated conclusion is correct.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Parse each cited statute, rule, or regulatory provision at the subsection level before drawing conclusions.
- For each proposition used in the analysis, cite the controlling authority by name and section; do not state a legal conclusion without naming the rule that supports it.
- Distinguish provisions requiring scienter from those satisfied by recklessness, negligence, or defined conduct alone; do not import a higher standard from one provision into another.
- Where a provision requires conduct “in connection with” a transaction, security, investment decision, distribution, solicitation, or other regulated nexus, make the nexus analysis explicit.
- Where multiple subsections have different mental-state requirements or different conduct triggers, analyze each separately.
- Include strict-liability or per se provisions where the facts plausibly trigger them, even if intent is disputed or absent.
- For Board-level analysis, prioritize issues that understate exposure and note the practical consequence of the gap in regulatory, litigation, or remedial terms.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds
1. **Provision-by-provision check**: For each statute or rule discussed in the memorandum, state the controlling authority and compare the memo’s stated standard to the correct legal standard.
2. **Element completeness check**: For each provision, verify that the memo addresses every required element, including any nexus, jurisdictional, or transaction-linked component.
3. **Scienter mismatch analysis**: If the memo requires proof of intent where the provision allows a lower mental state, explain what conduct is wrongly excluded from exposure.
4. **Subsection split analysis**: If a statute contains multiple subsections, analyze them separately and avoid treating them as interchangeable.
5. **Omitted-theory review**: Identify statutory provisions or regulatory theories that the memo does not mention but that the facts plausibly implicate.
6. **Strict-liability screen**: Test whether the facts trigger any provision that does not turn on intent.
7. **Board-impact assessment**: State why the gap matters for oversight, including how it affects exposure assessment, internal remediation, reporting decisions, or enforcement risk.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Examine how the facts, the memorandum’s legal conclusions, and the supporting documents interact across time and between entities, transactions, or decision points.
- If one document establishes the factual predicate for an element the memorandum overlooks, cross-reference that document explicitly in the analysis.
- If the same conduct could satisfy more than one provision at different threshold levels, note the hierarchy rather than collapsing the provisions into one generic fraud discussion.
- If a later event clarifies or strengthens the nexus or mental-state inference, explain that relationship in sequence; do not analyze the memo in a vacuum.

## 6. Output structure conventions
- Write a statutory gap analysis report organized by provision, with one entry per legal issue or omitted theory.
- Define an ordinal severity scale once at the top and apply it uniformly to every entry.
- For each entry, include: the provision, the memorandum’s treatment, the controlling legal standard with authority, the gap or error, the significance of the gap, and the correction needed in analytical terms.
- Close each issue with: the relevant scale or scope from the source record; the cross-reference to the interacting document, clause, or fact set; and the downstream consequence for the client.
- Rank errors that understate exposure above drafting or completeness issues that do not materially change risk.
- End with an explicit Recommended Actions section that assigns an imperative task to a responsible role and ties it to a deadline, milestone, or relative urgency from the record.
- Keep the report suitable for Board use: precise, citation-backed, and concise, without reproducing long internal quotations or unnecessary arithmetic.