# Examples

These examples demonstrate source routing. They intentionally avoid definitive legal advice.

## Example 1 — Work email monitoring

**User question:** Can my Swiss employer monitor my work email?

```markdown
# Swiss Legal Source Map

## 1. Issue classification
Employment + data protection + workplace policy. The answer may change if the employer is private, public-sector, regulated, or if monitoring involves criminal/procedural evidence.

## 2. Likely authority layers
| Layer | Relevance | Source path to check | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal law | Employment duties and personality protection; data protection | Fedlex: Code of Obligations, Federal Act on Data Protection and ordinances | official-primary-law |
| Regulator | Data protection guidance | FDPIC / EDÖB | official-regulator-material |
| Cantonal law | Possible if public-sector employer or cantonal employment rules | Relevant canton portal | requires canton |
| Contractual/internal | Employment contract, IT policy, acceptable-use policy | Employer documents | contractual |
| Case law | Personality rights, monitoring, evidence issues | Federal Supreme Court and cantonal decisions | official-case-law |

## 3. Language, version, and date checks
Check current federal law and whether the relevant workplace guidance is up to date. Verify DE/FR/IT if wording matters.

## 4. Preliminary legal-information frame
The source route suggests that a safe answer should separate general workplace monitoring principles from the concrete monitoring setup: purpose, notice, proportionality, access scope, retention, private-use policy, and public/private employer status.

## 5. Swiss-specific uncertainty flags
- Employer type unknown.
- Canton unknown.
- Internal IT policy unknown.
- Monitoring method and purpose unknown.

## 6. Human review boundary
Swiss lawyer or data-protection review is recommended before implementing or challenging a concrete monitoring measure.
```

## Example 2 — Contract enforceability

**User question:** Is this limitation-of-liability clause enforceable under Swiss law?

```markdown
# Swiss Legal Source Map

## 1. Issue classification
Private contract law + possible mandatory-law exceptions. The contract type and parties matter.

## 2. Likely authority layers
| Layer | Relevance | Source path to check | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal law | General contract and liability rules | Fedlex: Swiss Code of Obligations and related statutes | official-primary-law |
| Case law | Interpretation of liability exclusions and mandatory limits | Federal Supreme Court decisions | official-case-law |
| Contractual source | Governing law, jurisdiction, order of precedence, negotiated clauses | Contract text | contractual |
| Sector law | Possible if employment, consumer, tenancy, financial services, data processing, transport, etc. | Fedlex and regulator sources | depends |

## 3. Language, version, and date checks
Check the governing law clause and the language of the contract. If the clause uses translated Swiss-law terms, note translation risk.

## 4. Preliminary legal-information frame
Do not answer enforceability in the abstract. First identify the contract type, party sophistication, mandatory-law regime, excluded conduct, liability category, and whether the clause conflicts with specific statutory restrictions or public policy.

## 5. Swiss-specific uncertainty flags
- Contract type unknown.
- Full liability architecture unknown.
- Consumer/employment/tenancy/data-processing exceptions not ruled out.

## 6. Human review boundary
Lawyer review required for a definitive enforceability opinion or negotiation advice.
```

## Example 3 — Fintech authorisation

**User question:** Does a Swiss fintech need FINMA authorisation?

```markdown
# Swiss Legal Source Map

## 1. Issue classification
Financial-market regulation + AML + possible banking, securities, collective investment, payment, crypto/token, or insurance regulation.

## 2. Likely authority layers
| Layer | Relevance | Source path to check | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal law | Financial-market statutes and ordinances | Fedlex | official-primary-law |
| Regulator | FINMA authorisation categories, guidance, circulars, enforcement practice | FINMA | official-regulator-material |
| Self-regulation | AML SRO rules may apply | Relevant SRO | soft-law/self-regulation |
| Register/legal state | Existing authorisation or registration | FINMA authorised institutions list, commercial register | official-register-legal-state |
| Case law | Disputes over authorisation/perimeter | Federal Administrative Court, Federal Supreme Court | official-case-law |

## 3. Language, version, and date checks
Financial-market rules change frequently. Verify current statutes, ordinances, FINMA guidance, and any transitional periods.

## 4. Preliminary legal-information frame
A safe triage should classify the activity before answering: custody of client assets, deposit-taking, lending, securities/intermediation, payment services, token issuance, asset management, insurance, AML-relevant activity, and cross-border marketing.

## 5. Swiss-specific uncertainty flags
- Business model unknown.
- Custody/payment/token function unknown.
- Client type and geography unknown.
- FINMA no-action or ruling may be needed.

## 6. Human review boundary
Regulatory lawyer review is required before launch, marketing, or reliance on a no-authorisation conclusion.
```

## Example 4 — Company signatory authority

**User question:** Can this person sign for a Swiss company?

```markdown
# Swiss Legal Source Map

## 1. Issue classification
Corporate authority + commercial-register/legal-state check + contract execution.

## 2. Likely authority layers
| Layer | Relevance | Source path to check | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Register/legal state | Current signatory authority and entity status | Zefix and cantonal commercial register extract | official-register-legal-state |
| Federal law | Corporate representation rules | Fedlex: Code of Obligations | official-primary-law |
| Contractual source | Signature blocks, board approvals, powers of attorney | Contract and corporate documents | contractual |
| Publications | Recent changes, insolvency, merger, liquidation | SHAB/SOGC | official-register-legal-state |

## 3. Language, version, and date checks
Check the current official extract and whether there are recent SHAB/SOGC notices affecting authority.

## 4. Preliminary legal-information frame
A register entry can indicate signing authority, but practical authority may require checking joint-signature requirements, powers of attorney, board resolutions, and whether the transaction itself requires special approvals.

## 5. Swiss-specific uncertainty flags
- Official extract not reviewed.
- Transaction type unknown.
- Internal approvals unknown.

## 6. Human review boundary
Human review recommended for high-value, unusual, regulated, or cross-border transactions.
```
