[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$apiParty6fBuHLCPZ1LTYs42XHdVbjpSDOYYPYzyxeAGwSN5Tp8":3,"$apiPartyIeIKciDRZaLNGv1PH-fWw3LYBoU49UnTVUkNNQXr4mE":563,"$apiPartyIeIKciDRZaLNGv1PH-fWw3LYBoU49UnTVUkNNQXr4mE$H93EERW16b":563},{"product_data":4,"scene_data":21,"task_data":407,"modality_data":441,"domain_data":478},[5,9,12,15,18],{"name":6,"value":7,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Rivo","1","",{"name":10,"value":11,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Cubo","2",{"name":13,"value":14,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Moye","3",{"name":16,"value":17,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Juro","4",{"name":19,"value":20,"add_value":8,"describe":8},"Ordo","5",[22,73,135,197,232,267,302,337,372],{"name":23,"value":7,"add_value":24,"describe":25,"children":26},"Home & Indoor","sofa","AI enhances everyday home life. Our datasets cover real indoor scenes to support smart devices, robotics, and home intelligence.",[27,29,31,33,35,37,40,43,46,49,52,55,58,61,64,67,70],{"name":28,"value":7},"Living Room",{"name":30,"value":11},"Bedroom",{"name":32,"value":14},"Kitchen",{"name":34,"value":17},"Dining Area",{"name":36,"value":20},"Bathroom",{"name":38,"value":39},"Entrance \u002F Foyer","6",{"name":41,"value":42},"Corridor \u002F Hallway","7",{"name":44,"value":45},"Staircase","8",{"name":47,"value":48},"Home Office","9",{"name":50,"value":51},"Hobby \u002F Game Room","10",{"name":53,"value":54},"Worship Space","11",{"name":56,"value":57},"Garage","12",{"name":59,"value":60},"Utility \u002F Laundry Room","13",{"name":62,"value":63},"Pantry","14",{"name":65,"value":66},"Basement","15",{"name":68,"value":69},"Garden","16",{"name":71,"value":72},"Balcony","17",{"name":74,"value":11,"add_value":75,"describe":76,"children":77},"Office & Educational","workshop","AI is reshaping work and learning. Our datasets capture offices and classrooms to power automation and next-generation productivity tools.",[78,81,84,87,90,93,96,99,102,105,108,111,114,117,120,123,126,129,132],{"name":79,"value":80},"Open Office","18",{"name":82,"value":83},"Private Office","19",{"name":85,"value":86},"Co-working Space","20",{"name":88,"value":89},"Reception \u002F Lobby","21",{"name":91,"value":92},"Conference Room","22",{"name":94,"value":95},"Huddle Room \u002F Booth","23",{"name":97,"value":98},"Lecture Hall \u002F Auditorium","24",{"name":100,"value":101},"Classroom","25",{"name":103,"value":104},"Science Laboratory","26",{"name":106,"value":107},"Library","27",{"name":109,"value":110},"Design Studio","28",{"name":112,"value":113},"Pantry \u002F Breakroom","29",{"name":115,"value":116},"Cafeteria \u002F Canteen","30",{"name":118,"value":119},"Restroom (Commercial)","31",{"name":121,"value":122},"Gymnasium \u002F Sports Hall","32",{"name":124,"value":125},"Server Room","33",{"name":127,"value":128},"Mailroom \u002F Logistics","34",{"name":130,"value":131},"Janitorial Closet","35",{"name":133,"value":134},"Corridor \u002F Elevators","36",{"name":136,"value":14,"add_value":137,"describe":138,"children":139},"Healthcare & Medical","love-and-help","AI is advancing modern healthcare. Our datasets include clinics and hospitals to enable clinical insights and medical automation.",[140,143,146,149,152,155,158,161,164,167,170,173,176,179,182,185,188,191,194],{"name":141,"value":142},"Operating Theatre \u002F OR","37",{"name":144,"value":145},"Consultation Room","38",{"name":147,"value":148},"Treatment Room","39",{"name":150,"value":151},"Dental Clinic","40",{"name":153,"value":154},"Inpatient Ward","41",{"name":156,"value":157},"Nurse Station","42",{"name":159,"value":160},"ICU","43",{"name":162,"value":163},"NICU (Neonatal ICU)","44",{"name":165,"value":166},"Emergency Room (ER)","45",{"name":168,"value":169},"Hospital Corridor","46",{"name":171,"value":172},"Waiting Area","47",{"name":174,"value":175},"CT\u002FMRI","48",{"name":177,"value":178},"Medical Laboratory","49",{"name":180,"value":181},"Phlebotomy Room","50",{"name":183,"value":184},"Rehabilitation Gym","51",{"name":186,"value":187},"Assisted Living Room","52",{"name":189,"value":190},"Pharmacy","53",{"name":192,"value":193},"Sterile Processing Dept","54",{"name":195,"value":196},"Medical Storage","55",{"name":198,"value":17,"add_value":199,"describe":200,"children":201},"Business & Public Service","business","AI is elevating commercial and public services. Our datasets span retail, dining, and service centers to improve intelligent operations.",[202,205,208,211,214,217,220,223,226,229],{"name":203,"value":204},"Shopping Mall Atrium","86",{"name":206,"value":207},"Supermarket Shelf","87",{"name":209,"value":210},"Self-Checkout Counter","88",{"name":212,"value":213},"Restaurant Dining Hall","89",{"name":215,"value":216},"Commercial Kitchen","90",{"name":218,"value":219},"Hotel Lobby","91",{"name":221,"value":222},"Subway Platform","92",{"name":224,"value":225},"Security Checkpoint","93",{"name":227,"value":228},"Underground Parking","94",{"name":230,"value":231},"Bank Teller Zone","95",{"name":233,"value":20,"add_value":234,"describe":235,"children":236},"Industrial & Manufacturing","robot-arm","AI is modernizing industry. Our datasets capture factories and logistics spaces to support robotics and intelligent manufacturing.",[237,240,243,246,249,252,255,258,261,264],{"name":238,"value":239},"Final Assembly Line","96",{"name":241,"value":242},"Quality Control Station","97",{"name":244,"value":245},"Robotic Welding Cell","98",{"name":247,"value":248},"CNC Machining Center","99",{"name":250,"value":251},"Cleanroom","100",{"name":253,"value":254},"Automated Warehouse","101",{"name":256,"value":257},"Loading Dock","102",{"name":259,"value":260},"Sorting Center","103",{"name":262,"value":263},"Chemical Plant","104",{"name":265,"value":266},"Power Substation","105",{"name":268,"value":39,"add_value":269,"describe":270,"children":271},"Transportation & Driving","car","AI is revolutionizing mobility. Our datasets capture road networks, vehicle dynamics and traffic scenarios to support autonomous driving and intelligent transportation systems.",[272,275,278,281,284,287,290,293,296,299],{"name":273,"value":274},"Urban Intersection","56",{"name":276,"value":277},"Highway \u002F Expressway","57",{"name":279,"value":280},"Tunnel","58",{"name":282,"value":283},"Roundabout","59",{"name":285,"value":286},"School \u002F Hospital Zone","60",{"name":288,"value":289},"Toll Station","61",{"name":291,"value":292},"Construction Zone","62",{"name":294,"value":295},"Parking Garage","63",{"name":297,"value":298},"Driver Cabin","64",{"name":300,"value":301},"Adverse Weather","65",{"name":303,"value":42,"add_value":304,"describe":305,"children":306},"Outdoor & Construction","tent-tree","AI is optimizing outdoor operations. Our datasets capture construction sites, open-air work zones and outdoor infrastructure to support smart construction and autonomous outdoor machinery.",[307,310,313,316,319,322,325,328,331,334],{"name":308,"value":309},"Excavation Site","66",{"name":311,"value":312},"Scaffolding Area","67",{"name":314,"value":315},"Material Storage Yard","68",{"name":317,"value":318},"Site Entrance","69",{"name":320,"value":321},"Roadwork Zone","70",{"name":323,"value":324},"Bridge Infrastructure","71",{"name":326,"value":327},"Transmission Line","72",{"name":329,"value":330},"Open-pit Mine","73",{"name":332,"value":333},"Tunneling Site","74",{"name":335,"value":336},"Post-Disaster Rubble","75",{"name":338,"value":45,"add_value":339,"describe":340,"children":341},"Nature, Aerial & Aquatic","global-loop","AI is exploring the natural world. Our datasets capture terrestrial landscapes, aerial vistas and aquatic ecosystems to support environmental monitoring and autonomous exploration systems.",[342,345,348,351,354,357,360,363,366,369],{"name":343,"value":344},"Deep Forest","76",{"name":346,"value":347},"Farmland \u002F Crops","77",{"name":349,"value":350},"River \u002F Lake","78",{"name":352,"value":353},"Open Ocean","79",{"name":355,"value":356},"Underwater Coral Reef","80",{"name":358,"value":359},"Fish Farm","81",{"name":361,"value":362},"Mountain Terrain","82",{"name":364,"value":365},"Urban Low Altitude","83",{"name":367,"value":368},"Fire Scene","84",{"name":370,"value":371},"Desert \u002F Gobi","85",{"name":373,"value":48,"add_value":374,"describe":375,"children":376},"Virtul & Digital","siri","AI is reshaping the virtual realm. Our datasets capture digital twins, virtual environments and simulated spaces to support metaverse development and intelligent digital interaction.",[377,380,383,386,389,392,395,398,401,404],{"name":378,"value":379},"VR Social Space","106",{"name":381,"value":382},"Synthetic Driving Sim","107",{"name":384,"value":385},"Digital Twin City","108",{"name":387,"value":388},"FPS \u002F MOBA Game","109",{"name":390,"value":391},"Robotics Gym","110",{"name":393,"value":394},"AR Navigation","111",{"name":396,"value":397},"Virtual Showroom","112",{"name":399,"value":400},"Code \u002F IDE Interface","113",{"name":402,"value":403},"App GUI Screen","114",{"name":405,"value":406},"Synthetic Face\u002FID","115",[408,411,414,417,420,423,426,429,432,435,438],{"name":409,"value":7,"add_value":410,"describe":8},"Classification","rubric",{"name":412,"value":11,"add_value":413,"describe":8},"Detection","radar",{"name":415,"value":14,"add_value":416,"describe":8},"Segmentation","segmentation",{"name":418,"value":17,"add_value":419,"describe":8},"Tacking","crosshairs",{"name":421,"value":20,"add_value":422,"describe":8},"Estimation","streamline",{"name":424,"value":39,"add_value":425,"describe":8},"QA","qa",{"name":427,"value":42,"add_value":428,"describe":8},"Recognition","finger-scan",{"name":430,"value":45,"add_value":431,"describe":8},"Control","control",{"name":433,"value":48,"add_value":434,"describe":8},"Extraction","extraction",{"name":436,"value":51,"add_value":437,"describe":8},"Retrieval","retrieval",{"name":439,"value":54,"add_value":440,"describe":8},"Forecast","forecast",[442,445,448,451,454,457,460,463,466,469,472,475],{"name":443,"value":7,"add_value":444,"describe":8},"Audio","audio",{"name":446,"value":11,"add_value":447,"describe":8},"Image","image",{"name":449,"value":14,"add_value":450,"describe":8},"Text","text",{"name":452,"value":17,"add_value":453,"describe":8},"Video","video",{"name":455,"value":20,"add_value":456,"describe":8},"Multi","multi",{"name":458,"value":39,"add_value":459,"describe":8},"Document","document",{"name":461,"value":42,"add_value":462,"describe":8},"Time-Series","time-series",{"name":464,"value":45,"add_value":465,"describe":8},"3D cloud","cloud",{"name":467,"value":48,"add_value":468,"describe":8},"Code","code",{"name":470,"value":51,"add_value":471,"describe":8},"Event","event",{"name":473,"value":54,"add_value":474,"describe":8},"Motion","motion",{"name":476,"value":57,"add_value":477,"describe":8},"Interaction","interaction",[479,482,487,491,494,499,504,509,514,519,524,528,532,536,540,544,548,552,556,559],{"id":480,"value":480,"name":233,"intro":481,"add_value":234,"describe":481},2,"智能质检：利用图像识别、多模态模型对产品外观或声音、振动等数据进行分析，自动识别缺陷，提高质量控制效率。\n工业知识问答与文档理解：通过大模型理解和总结技术文档、操作手册，实现快速问答、知识检索和培训支持。\n安全监测与风险预警：实时分析视频、传感器和操作日志，识别潜在危险行为或异常状态，提前预警，保障人员和设备安全。",{"id":483,"value":483,"name":484,"intro":485,"add_value":486,"describe":485},3,"Finance & Insurance","风险评估与预测：分析大量客户数据，评估信用风险、市场风险等，预测违约概率、股价走势等，辅助金融机构决策。\n智能投顾：根据客户风险偏好、资产状况等，提供个性化投资组合建议，实时调整投资策略。\n反欺诈检测：通过分析交易数据、用户行为，识别异常交易和欺诈行为，保障金融安全。","funds",{"id":488,"value":488,"name":489,"intro":490,"add_value":269,"describe":490},1,"Transport & Automotive","智能座舱：打造多模态交互的 AI 座舱，通过语音、手势、面部识别等实现人机交互，如语音控制导航、音乐播放。\n驾驶员状态监测：识别疲劳、分心、抽烟、打电话等行为，通过大模型判断危险等级，触发相应提醒或干预机制。\n智能驾驶：AI 用于环境感知、路径规划与决策控制，使车辆能识别道路、行人、障碍物等，实现自适应巡航、自动泊车、车道保持等功能，提升驾驶安全性与便利性。",{"id":492,"value":492,"name":136,"intro":493,"add_value":137,"describe":493},4,"医学影像诊断：分析 CT、MRI 等影像，辅助医生检测疾病、识别病灶，如 AI 系统可快速发现肺部结节。\n医患对话助手：通过自然语言处理理解患者问题，提供初步健康建议或就诊指导，缓解医生接诊压力。\n智能健康管理：根据用户健康数据，提供个性化健康建议、疾病预警，如智能手环结合 AI 分析用户运动、睡眠、心率等数据。",{"id":495,"value":495,"name":496,"intro":497,"add_value":498,"describe":497},6,"Smart Devices","多模态交互：支持语音、手势、眼神等多种交互方式，如 AI 眼镜可通过语音指令实现翻译、搜索功能。\n智能感知与处理：使设备能感知环境、理解用户需求，如智能音箱根据环境噪音自动调节音量。\n个性化服务：根据用户使用习惯和偏好，提供个性化功能与服务，如智能手表为用户定制运动健身计划。","microscope",{"id":500,"value":500,"name":501,"intro":502,"add_value":503,"describe":502},8,"Law & Government","智能法律问答：面向公众或企业用户，提供合规、劳动法、婚姻继承、知识产权等常见法律问题的智能解答。\n合同审查与风险识别：利用大模型分析合同内容，识别潜在风险条款、漏洞或不合理约定，提升合同审核质量。\n法律知识图谱构建：自动梳理法规、案例、条文之间的引用关系，构建语义化知识图谱，支持智能分析和推理。","hammer",{"id":505,"value":505,"name":506,"intro":507,"add_value":508,"describe":507},7,"Education & Training","个性化学习：根据学生学习进度、能力和知识掌握情况，推送个性化学习内容与练习，如智能辅导系统为学生制定专属学习计划。\n智能教学辅助：AI 助教协助教师进行作业批改、答疑解惑，还可分析教学数据，为教师提供教学反馈，优化教学方法。\n虚拟学习环境：利用 AI 创建虚拟实验、历史场景等，让学生沉浸式学习，如在虚拟化学实验室中进行实验操作。","degree-hat",{"id":510,"value":510,"name":511,"intro":512,"add_value":513,"describe":512},5,"Agriculture & Food","作物病虫害识别与防治：通过图像识别分析农作物叶片、果实等症状，识别病虫害类型，给出防治建议，减少产量损失。\n农产品质量检测：利用图像和传感器数据，识别果蔬等农产品的成熟度、外观缺陷，进行自动分级，提高市场竞争力。\n农情监测与预测：利用卫星遥感、气象和传感器数据，结合大模型预测作物长势、干旱、洪涝等农情变化。","ph-farm",{"id":515,"value":515,"name":516,"intro":517,"add_value":518,"describe":517},9,"Retail & E-commerce","智能客服：通过自然语言对话理解用户需求，提供产品推荐、订单查询、退换货支持等服务，提升客户满意度。\n个性化营销推荐：基于用户浏览、购买、偏好等行为数据，生成个性化推荐内容与优惠策略，提高转化率和客单价。\n商品内容生成：自动撰写商品标题、卖点描述、使用说明等内容，适用于海量SKU的内容生产与多语言发布。","buy",{"id":520,"value":520,"name":521,"intro":522,"add_value":523,"describe":8},10,"Security & Protection",null,"safe-shield-line",{"id":525,"value":525,"name":526,"intro":522,"add_value":527,"describe":8},11,"Environment & Climate","weather",{"id":529,"value":529,"name":530,"intro":522,"add_value":531,"describe":8},12,"Energy & Resource","energy-leaf",{"id":533,"value":533,"name":534,"intro":522,"add_value":535,"describe":8},13,"Express & Logistics","speed-outline",{"id":537,"value":537,"name":538,"intro":522,"add_value":539,"describe":8},15,"Sports","baseball-outline",{"id":541,"value":541,"name":542,"intro":522,"add_value":543,"describe":8},16,"General Data","daily-booth",{"id":545,"value":545,"name":546,"intro":522,"add_value":547,"describe":8},17,"Content & Media","media",{"id":549,"value":549,"name":550,"intro":522,"add_value":551,"describe":8},18,"Construction","construction",{"id":553,"value":553,"name":554,"intro":522,"add_value":555,"describe":8},19,"IT & Telecom","tech",{"id":557,"value":557,"name":558,"intro":522,"add_value":498,"describe":8},20,"Science & Research",{"id":560,"value":560,"name":561,"intro":522,"add_value":562,"describe":8},21,"Language & Culture","lang",{"id":564,"unique_code":565,"title":566,"icon":8,"intro":567,"cate":483,"detail":568,"create_time":569,"update_time":570,"price":571,"view_count":495,"download_count":572,"unit":572,"amount":573,"is_create_order":572,"enterprise_id":488,"seo_keywords":574,"seo_description":575,"data_format":576,"file_size":577,"apply_scene":578,"training_task":579,"version":580,"dataset_type_id":492,"dataset_scene_id":500,"sample_file":581,"banner":8,"unit_name":8,"cate_name":449,"icon_url":8,"banner_url":8,"sample_file_url":8,"data_dict":582,"qa_list":625,"sample_metadatas":642,"text_sample_content":682,"enterprise_name":683,"enterprise_logo":684,"data_distribution":685},1258,"2309832a2d82208ba7480692fef96095","Confidential Information Exception Clause Evidence Retrieval Dataset","Retrieve scenario-linked evidence for confidentiality exceptions and support precise proof analysis and boundary assessment.","\u003Cp>This dataset focuses on exceptions to confidentiality obligations, covering information that is publicly available, already known, independently developed, or lawfully obtained from a third party. It includes scenario-based retrieval questions, evidence excerpts, and source information, organized around exception criteria, proof requirements, and limits of applicability. The data supports legal authority retrieval, evidence assessment, and knowledge grounding for retrieval-augmented generation systems.\u003C\u002Fp>","2026-10-15 18:07:54","2026-10-19 17:18:42","0.00",0,5000,"confidentiality exception clauses,NDA dataset,legal evidence retrieval,public information exception,independent development exception,lawfully obtained third-party information,proof requirements,legal retrieval-augmented generation","Scenario-based evidence for confidentiality exceptions, supporting proof analysis, evidence assessment, and legal retrieval-augmented generation.","JSON","0.4GB","NDA confidentiality exception review, contract clause analysis, legal evidence retrieval","legal evidence retrieval, clause-level evidence matching, confidentiality boundary analysis","V1.0","rivo\u002Fsample-packages\u002Fde1c7c78-486b-4f22-b56a-1e2065670d87\u002F20261015.zip",[583,588,594,599,605,610,615,620],{"id":572,"name":584,"field":585,"intro":586,"type":587},"File Name","file_name","File name","string",{"id":589,"name":590,"field":591,"intro":592,"type":593},9224,"Raw Record","raw_record","Preserves the original categories, clauses, questions, evidence, and source information needed for exception-clause evidence retrieval.","object",{"id":595,"name":596,"field":597,"intro":598,"type":593},9225,"Exception Boundary Analysis","boundary_analysis","Analyzes the applicability conclusion, boundary conditions, and potential risks of an exception clause in the given scenario.",{"id":600,"name":601,"field":602,"intro":603,"type":604},9226,"Exception Elements","exception_elements","Exception criteria, legal effects, and factual indicators extracted from clauses and evidence.","array",{"id":606,"name":607,"field":608,"intro":609,"type":604},9227,"Proof Requirements","proof_requirements","Matters to prove, acceptable evidence, verification methods, and current support status summarized from clauses, questions, and evidence.",{"id":611,"name":612,"field":613,"intro":614,"type":593},9228,"Evidence Assessment","evidence_assessment","Evaluates the relevance, sufficiency, and probative role of evidence excerpts in relation to retrieval questions and exception clauses.",{"id":616,"name":617,"field":618,"intro":619,"type":593},9229,"Retrieval Annotation","retrieval_annotation","Converts scenario-based questions into intent, keywords, and answer priorities for retrieval and knowledge grounding.",{"id":621,"name":622,"field":623,"intro":624,"type":587},9230,"Normalized Exception Type","normalized_exception_type","The confidentiality exception type normalized from the original clause content.",[626,630,634,638],{"id":627,"question":628,"answer":629},6483,"Which confidentiality exceptions are covered?","The dataset covers common exceptions for publicly available information, information already known to the receiving party, independently developed information, and information lawfully obtained from a third party. It includes related clauses, scenario-based questions, and evidence excerpts.",{"id":631,"question":632,"answer":633},6484,"How does the dataset support evidence retrieval and analysis?","Structured elements include exception criteria, proof requirements, evidence assessments, boundary analyses, and retrieval annotations. These can help retrieve relevant support and assess how evidence relates to a question or clause.",{"id":635,"question":636,"answer":637},6485,"Which legal workflows can use this dataset?","It is suited to NDA review, contract due diligence, legal research, and compliance review. It can also support the development or evaluation of retrieval-augmented generation systems for legal documents.",{"id":639,"question":640,"answer":641},6486,"How is the dataset structured, and what about access and licensing?","The fields include raw records, normalized exception types, exception elements, proof requirements, evidence assessments, boundary analyses, and retrieval annotations. Refer to the provider for current access methods and licensing terms.",[643,658,670],{"id":644,"relate_table":645,"relate_id":646,"file_size":572,"file_name":647,"path":8,"duration":572,"cate":483,"file_format":648,"audio_rate":8,"audio_channel":522,"audio_bit_depth":522,"quality":8,"annotation":649,"cate_name":650,"raw_record":651,"boundary_analysis":652,"exception_elements":653,"proof_requirements":654,"evidence_assessment":655,"retrieval_annotation":656,"normalized_exception_type":657},15174,"union_cubo",1768430733,"样例_3.json","json","{\"raw_record\": \"{\\\"clause_category\\\": \\\"Lawful Third-Party Acquisition\\\", \\\"clause_text\\\": \\\"If the receiving party lawfully obtains the information from a third party authorized to disclose the relevant information, and at the time of acquisition the receiving party did not know and had no reasonable reason to know that the third party was under an obligation not to disclose it, then such information is not automatically subject to the restrictions of this clause merely because other confidentiality claims also exist. The third-party acquisition exception does not apply to information obtained by theft, fraud, breach of contract, or by means of knowing that confidentiality restrictions exist.\\\", \\\"scenario_question\\\": \\\"The receiving party obtained a set of interface documents from a software supplier; the supplier has a license agreement with the original rights holder and is authorized to provide the documents to partners; can the receiving party claim the lawful third-party acquisition exception?\\\", \\\"evidence_text\\\": \\\"A summary of the license agreement issued by the software supplier states that it may provide the interface documents to approved integration partners and may grant partners the right to use them internally for integration and maintenance purposes. The receiving party downloaded the documents through the supplier's partner portal, and the portal required login with an approved enterprise account. The receiving party currently keeps the supplier's authorization confirmation letter and download records, but has not yet obtained the complete agreement between the original rights holder and the supplier, nor verified whether the documents contain internal source code explanations beyond the scope of the license.\\\", \\\"source_reference\\\": \\\"Supplier license agreement summary, authorization confirmation letter, and partner portal download records\\\"}\", \"boundary_analysis\": \"{\\\"applicability\\\": \\\"Further verification required\\\", \\\"boundary_conditions\\\": [\\\"The supplier must have valid authorization for the specific interface documents provided, and not merely general sales or integration qualifications\\\", \\\"The receiving party's good faith should be assessed based on the objective circumstances at the time of acquisition; obvious warnings will affect the claim to the exception\\\", \\\"Lawful acquisition does not mean that the documents may be used beyond the licensed purpose, personnel scope, or content scope\\\"], \\\"risk_notes\\\": [\\\"The authorization confirmation letter may prove only some documents or some uses, and cannot replace the complete authorization chain\\\", \\\"If the receiving party knows that the documents contain restricted internal materials of the original rights holder, the good-faith acquisition defense may fail\\\", \\\"Even if the acquisition method is lawful, copying, disclosure, or reverse engineering beyond the licensed scope may still create liability\\\"], \\\"analysis\\\": \\\"The receiving party obtained the documents through a formal partner portal and kept download records; the existing evidence strongly supports that the acquisition channel was lawful and that the receiving party had no obvious bad faith. However, the supplier's authorization chain for the specific documents and the receiving party's actual scope of use have not been fully proven, so it cannot be directly found that the third-party acquisition exception applies to all documents. The complete license agreement, document scope correspondence table, and use records should be supplemented; before verification is completed, the conclusion on the exception is that further verification is required.\\\"}\", \"exception_elements\": \"[{\\\"element_type\\\": \\\"Third-Party Rights Condition\\\", \\\"condition\\\": \\\"The third party disclosing or providing the information has ownership, licensing rights, or other lawful rights sufficient to authorize it to provide the relevant content to the receiving party.\\\", \\\"legal_effect\\\": \\\"The receiving party may claim based on a lawful source that the acquisition method itself does not constitute a breach of confidentiality obligations, but the scope of the exception must not exceed the third party's actual authorization scope.\\\", \\\"factual_indicators\\\": [\\\"There is a valid license or sublicense document between the third party and the original rights holder\\\", \\\"The authorization terms expressly permit providing the relevant materials to specified partners\\\", \\\"The provided content is consistent with the scope of content the third party is authorized to provide\\\"]}, {\\\"element_type\\\": \\\"Acquisition Method and Subjective State\\\", \\\"condition\\\": \\\"The receiving party obtained the information through normal commercial channels, and at the time of acquisition did not know and had no reasonable reason to know that the third party was under an obligation not to disclose it.\\\", \\\"legal_effect\\\": \\\"Within the scope of good-faith and lawful acquisition, the receiving party may generally claim the third-party acquisition exception; however, use after acquisition remains subject to the permitted purpose, scope, and other contractual restrictions.\\\", \\\"factual_indicators\\\": [\\\"Downloaded through a reviewed partner portal or formal contractual channel\\\", \\\"The receiving party used an enterprise account and obtained the materials according to the supplier's process\\\", \\\"The transaction documents contain no obvious confidentiality restrictions, rights defects, or abnormal source indications\\\"]}]\", \"proof_requirements\": \"[{\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the supplier has the right to provide the interface documents to the receiving party.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"License agreement between the original rights holder and the supplier\\\", \\\"Sublicense or partner distribution authorization\\\", \\\"Formal authorization confirmation letter from the supplier\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Check the entities in the authorization chain, the authorized objects, authorized content, territory, and term, and confirm that the interface documents fall within the authorized scope.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": false}, {\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the receiving party obtained the documents through lawful channels, and that at the time of acquisition there was no known or should-have-known rights defect.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"Partner portal account review records\\\", \\\"Download logs\\\", \\\"Purchase contracts, orders, and supplier compliance statements\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Check the account, download time, transaction documents, and supplier notices to determine whether the receiving party followed the normal acquisition process and whether there were obvious warnings.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": true}, {\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the receiving party's use did not exceed the purpose and scope of the third party's license.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"Integration project scope statement\\\", \\\"Internal access and use records\\\", \\\"Use restriction clauses in the license agreement\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Check the actual use objects, personnel, purposes, and storage methods item by item against the license terms, and exclude content beyond the scope such as source code or unauthorized internal explanations.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": false}]\", \"evidence_assessment\": \"{\\\"relevance_score\\\": 0.97, \\\"sufficiency_score\\\": 0.76, \\\"evidence_role\\\": \\\"Directly supports that the receiving party lawfully obtained the documents through a reviewed portal, and the authorization confirmation letter indirectly supports that the supplier has the authority to provide them; however, the complete authorization chain and the specific content scope of the documents have not been fully verified.\\\", \\\"missing_evidence\\\": [\\\"Complete license or sublicense agreement between the original rights holder and the supplier\\\", \\\"Correspondence between the interface document catalog and the authorized scope\\\", \\\"Records of the receiving party's actual scope of use and whether unauthorized source code explanations are included\\\"]}\", \"retrieval_annotation\": \"{\\\"question_intent\\\": \\\"Determine whether confidential information obtained from a third party has a lawful authorization source, and distinguish the boundary between lawful acquisition and use beyond scope.\\\", \\\"key_terms\\\": [\\\"lawful third-party acquisition\\\", \\\"authorization chain\\\", \\\"good-faith acquisition\\\", \\\"obligation not to disclose\\\", \\\"license scope\\\", \\\"lawful channel\\\"], \\\"answer_focus\\\": \\\"Priority should be given to verifying the third party's authorization rights over the specific materials, the receiving party's good-faith state at the time of acquisition, and whether subsequent use complies with the licensed purpose; it cannot be presumed from the supplier's authorization confirmation letter alone that all use is lawful.\\\", \\\"retrieval_keywords\\\": [\\\"lawful third-party acquisition confidential information\\\", \\\"third-party authorization chain license agreement\\\", \\\"good faith acquisition did not know should not have known\\\", \\\"partner portal lawful acquisition confidential materials\\\"]}\", \"normalized_exception_type\": \"Lawful Third-Party Acquisition Exception\"}","文本","{\"clause_category\": \"Lawful Third-Party Acquisition\", \"clause_text\": \"If the receiving party lawfully obtains the information from a third party authorized to disclose the relevant information, and at the time of acquisition the receiving party did not know and had no reasonable reason to know that the third party was under an obligation not to disclose it, then such information is not automatically subject to the restrictions of this clause merely because other confidentiality claims also exist. The third-party acquisition exception does not apply to information obtained by theft, fraud, breach of contract, or by means of knowing that confidentiality restrictions exist.\", \"scenario_question\": \"The receiving party obtained a set of interface documents from a software supplier; the supplier has a license agreement with the original rights holder and is authorized to provide the documents to partners; can the receiving party claim the lawful third-party acquisition exception?\", \"evidence_text\": \"A summary of the license agreement issued by the software supplier states that it may provide the interface documents to approved integration partners and may grant partners the right to use them internally for integration and maintenance purposes. The receiving party downloaded the documents through the supplier's partner portal, and the portal required login with an approved enterprise account. The receiving party currently keeps the supplier's authorization confirmation letter and download records, but has not yet obtained the complete agreement between the original rights holder and the supplier, nor verified whether the documents contain internal source code explanations beyond the scope of the license.\", \"source_reference\": \"Supplier license agreement summary, authorization confirmation letter, and partner portal download records\"}","{\"applicability\": \"Further verification required\", \"boundary_conditions\": [\"The supplier must have valid authorization for the specific interface documents provided, and not merely general sales or integration qualifications\", \"The receiving party's good faith should be assessed based on the objective circumstances at the time of acquisition; obvious warnings will affect the claim to the exception\", \"Lawful acquisition does not mean that the documents may be used beyond the licensed purpose, personnel scope, or content scope\"], \"risk_notes\": [\"The authorization confirmation letter may prove only some documents or some uses, and cannot replace the complete authorization chain\", \"If the receiving party knows that the documents contain restricted internal materials of the original rights holder, the good-faith acquisition defense may fail\", \"Even if the acquisition method is lawful, copying, disclosure, or reverse engineering beyond the licensed scope may still create liability\"], \"analysis\": \"The receiving party obtained the documents through a formal partner portal and kept download records; the existing evidence strongly supports that the acquisition channel was lawful and that the receiving party had no obvious bad faith. However, the supplier's authorization chain for the specific documents and the receiving party's actual scope of use have not been fully proven, so it cannot be directly found that the third-party acquisition exception applies to all documents. The complete license agreement, document scope correspondence table, and use records should be supplemented; before verification is completed, the conclusion on the exception is that further verification is required.\"}","[{\"element_type\": \"Third-Party Rights Condition\", \"condition\": \"The third party disclosing or providing the information has ownership, licensing rights, or other lawful rights sufficient to authorize it to provide the relevant content to the receiving party.\", \"legal_effect\": \"The receiving party may claim based on a lawful source that the acquisition method itself does not constitute a breach of confidentiality obligations, but the scope of the exception must not exceed the third party's actual authorization scope.\", \"factual_indicators\": [\"There is a valid license or sublicense document between the third party and the original rights holder\", \"The authorization terms expressly permit providing the relevant materials to specified partners\", \"The provided content is consistent with the scope of content the third party is authorized to provide\"]}, {\"element_type\": \"Acquisition Method and Subjective State\", \"condition\": \"The receiving party obtained the information through normal commercial channels, and at the time of acquisition did not know and had no reasonable reason to know that the third party was under an obligation not to disclose it.\", \"legal_effect\": \"Within the scope of good-faith and lawful acquisition, the receiving party may generally claim the third-party acquisition exception; however, use after acquisition remains subject to the permitted purpose, scope, and other contractual restrictions.\", \"factual_indicators\": [\"Downloaded through a reviewed partner portal or formal contractual channel\", \"The receiving party used an enterprise account and obtained the materials according to the supplier's process\", \"The transaction documents contain no obvious confidentiality restrictions, rights defects, or abnormal source indications\"]}]","[{\"requirement\": \"Prove that the supplier has the right to provide the interface documents to the receiving party.\", \"acceptable_evidence\": [\"License agreement between the original rights holder and the supplier\", \"Sublicense or partner distribution authorization\", \"Formal authorization confirmation letter from the supplier\"], \"verification_method\": \"Check the entities in the authorization chain, the authorized objects, authorized content, territory, and term, and confirm that the interface documents fall within the authorized scope.\", \"support_status\": false}, {\"requirement\": \"Prove that the receiving party obtained the documents through lawful channels, and that at the time of acquisition there was no known or should-have-known rights defect.\", \"acceptable_evidence\": [\"Partner portal account review records\", \"Download logs\", \"Purchase contracts, orders, and supplier compliance statements\"], \"verification_method\": \"Check the account, download time, transaction documents, and supplier notices to determine whether the receiving party followed the normal acquisition process and whether there were obvious warnings.\", \"support_status\": true}, {\"requirement\": \"Prove that the receiving party's use did not exceed the purpose and scope of the third party's license.\", \"acceptable_evidence\": [\"Integration project scope statement\", \"Internal access and use records\", \"Use restriction clauses in the license agreement\"], \"verification_method\": \"Check the actual use objects, personnel, purposes, and storage methods item by item against the license terms, and exclude content beyond the scope such as source code or unauthorized internal explanations.\", \"support_status\": false}]","{\"relevance_score\": 0.97, \"sufficiency_score\": 0.76, \"evidence_role\": \"Directly supports that the receiving party lawfully obtained the documents through a reviewed portal, and the authorization confirmation letter indirectly supports that the supplier has the authority to provide them; however, the complete authorization chain and the specific content scope of the documents have not been fully verified.\", \"missing_evidence\": [\"Complete license or sublicense agreement between the original rights holder and the supplier\", \"Correspondence between the interface document catalog and the authorized scope\", \"Records of the receiving party's actual scope of use and whether unauthorized source code explanations are included\"]}","{\"question_intent\": \"Determine whether confidential information obtained from a third party has a lawful authorization source, and distinguish the boundary between lawful acquisition and use beyond scope.\", \"key_terms\": [\"lawful third-party acquisition\", \"authorization chain\", \"good-faith acquisition\", \"obligation not to disclose\", \"license scope\", \"lawful channel\"], \"answer_focus\": \"Priority should be given to verifying the third party's authorization rights over the specific materials, the receiving party's good-faith state at the time of acquisition, and whether subsequent use complies with the licensed purpose; it cannot be presumed from the supplier's authorization confirmation letter alone that all use is lawful.\", \"retrieval_keywords\": [\"lawful third-party acquisition confidential information\", \"third-party authorization chain license agreement\", \"good faith acquisition did not know should not have known\", \"partner portal lawful acquisition confidential materials\"]}","Lawful Third-Party Acquisition Exception",{"id":659,"relate_table":645,"relate_id":660,"file_size":572,"file_name":661,"path":8,"duration":572,"cate":483,"file_format":648,"audio_rate":8,"audio_channel":522,"audio_bit_depth":522,"quality":8,"annotation":662,"cate_name":650,"raw_record":663,"boundary_analysis":664,"exception_elements":665,"proof_requirements":666,"evidence_assessment":667,"retrieval_annotation":668,"normalized_exception_type":669},15173,1430602586,"样例_2.json","{\"raw_record\": \"{\\\"clause_category\\\": \\\"Independent Development\\\", \\\"clause_text\\\": \\\"If the receiving party can prove that it independently developed the same or similar results by relying on its own personnel, equipment, and research process without using, referring to, or accessing the disclosing party's confidential information, then such results are not automatically subject to the restrictions under this clause merely because they are similar to the confidential information. The party claiming independent development shall retain records sufficient to explain the research and development process and information isolation.\\\", \\\"scenario_question\\\": \\\"The receiving party's R&D team completed a similar data compression module two months after accessing the disclosing party's materials, but its code repository shows that some basic functions already existed in earlier versions; can the existing records prove that the module was independently developed?\\\", \\\"evidence_text\\\": \\\"The commit records in the receiving party's code repository show that the basic coding framework and general validation functions were completed before the R&D personnel accessed the disclosing party's materials. After accessing the materials, the team added compression parameter selection, exception fallback, and caching strategy. The project documents record that the R&D goals were different from the disclosing party's module, but personnel access permission logs, branch isolation records, or section-by-section code similarity analysis have not yet been provided.\\\", \\\"source_reference\\\": \\\"Summary of the receiving party's R&D repository commit records, project design documents, and permission management list\\\"}\", \"boundary_analysis\": \"{\\\"applicability\\\": \\\"Further verification required\\\", \\\"boundary_conditions\\\": [\\\"Independent development should cover the specific results claimed for the exception, not merely the general basic functions therein\\\", \\\"The R&D process must maintain provable information isolation from the disclosed materials\\\", \\\"Similarity of results does not by itself exclude independent development, but a high degree of similarity and lack of process records will weaken the defense\\\"], \\\"risk_notes\\\": [\\\"The prior existence of basic code does not mean that the newly added compression strategy and caching solution were also independently formed\\\", \\\"R&D activities by personnel after accessing the materials may cause information contamination and need to be assessed together with access logs\\\", \\\"Project documents written after the fact or unilateral statements are usually insufficient to prove the complete independent development process\\\"], \\\"analysis\\\": \\\"The existing evidence can prove that the general framework already existed before access to the disclosed materials, but it cannot cover the compression parameter selection, exception fallback, and caching strategy added after access to the materials. The independent development exception requires proof of the specific results and their formation process, so the current conclusion can only be that further verification is required. Only after supplementing access isolation records, code similarity analysis, and continuous R&D documents can it be determined whether the newly added parts were truly independently formed.\\\"}\", \"exception_elements\": \"[{\\\"element_type\\\": \\\"Acquisition Method\\\", \\\"condition\\\": \\\"The results were formed through the receiving party's own resources and R&D activities without using, referring to, or accessing the other party's confidential information.\\\", \\\"legal_effect\\\": \\\"Even if the final results are similar to the confidential information, as long as the fact of independent development can be proven, the receiving party may claim that the results are not subject to the relevant confidentiality obligations.\\\", \\\"factual_indicators\\\": [\\\"Key code or design had an independent version before access to the confidential information\\\", \\\"There is information isolation among R&D personnel, project branches, and documents\\\", \\\"Commit records can continuously show the formation process from requirements to implementation\\\"]}, {\\\"element_type\\\": \\\"Burden of Proof\\\", \\\"condition\\\": \\\"The party claiming independent development can explain the source of the R&D through objective, continuous, and traceable records, rather than relying only on similarity of results or statements by R&D personnel.\\\", \\\"legal_effect\\\": \\\"Without records of the R&D process and access isolation, the probative value of the independent development defense decreases, and it may be necessary to further determine whether there are facts of referring to or absorbing confidential information.\\\", \\\"factual_indicators\\\": [\\\"The version control system has a timeline that cannot be arbitrarily modified\\\", \\\"Design documents record the evolution of the solution and the reasons for decisions\\\", \\\"Access logs can confirm when relevant personnel accessed the disclosing party's materials\\\"]}]\", \"proof_requirements\": \"[{\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the key technical solution of the similar module had begun to take shape or had a runnable version before access to the disclosing party's materials.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"Timestamped code commit records\\\", \\\"Early test reports and build artifacts\\\", \\\"R&D plans, design documents, and internal review records\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Check the functional scope of early versions according to the timeline, and compare them item by item with the specific technical features of the final module and the disclosed materials.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": true}, {\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the R&D team did not use or refer to the disclosing party's confidential materials while developing the newly added functions.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"File access logs\\\", \\\"Code repository permission and branch isolation records\\\", \\\"Written statements by R&D personnel and project meeting records\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Check personnel access permissions, material download records, project branches, and meeting times to confirm that there is no suspicious contact chain between R&D activities and the disclosed materials.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": false}, {\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the newly added design in the final module came from its own R&D process and was not rewritten or extracted from the disclosed materials.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"Design iteration documents\\\", \\\"Code similarity analysis reports\\\", \\\"Independent test records and technical review opinions\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Compare the newly added algorithms, parameter selection, and exception handling logic at the code and document levels, and trace the reasons for their formation and the time of first appearance.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": false}]\", \"evidence_assessment\": \"{\\\"relevance_score\\\": 0.94, \\\"sufficiency_score\\\": 0.61, \\\"evidence_role\\\": \\\"Directly supports that the basic framework was formed before access to the materials, and uses project documents to provide indirect corroboration of different R&D goals; however, it cannot by itself prove that subsequent newly added functions did not refer to the disclosed materials.\\\", \\\"missing_evidence\\\": [\\\"Logs of R&D personnel access to and downloading of the disclosed materials\\\", \\\"Project branch and permission isolation records\\\", \\\"Similarity analysis of code and technical features between the final module and the disclosed module\\\", \\\"Design iteration and review records for the newly added functions\\\"]}\", \"retrieval_annotation\": \"{\\\"question_intent\\\": \\\"Determine whether similar technical results originated from independent R&D, and identify the process evidence and information isolation requirements needed for the independent development defense.\\\", \\\"key_terms\\\": [\\\"independent development\\\", \\\"information isolation\\\", \\\"R&D records\\\", \\\"code commit timeline\\\", \\\"access logs\\\", \\\"similarity of results\\\"], \\\"answer_focus\\\": \\\"A distinction should be made between basic code that existed before access to the disclosed materials and technical solutions newly added after access, focusing on verifying access records, R&D timeline, and code similarity, rather than drawing conclusions only from similarity of results or the existence of early code.\\\", \\\"retrieval_keywords\\\": [\\\"independent development confidential information burden of proof\\\", \\\"code commit records independent development defense\\\", \\\"R&D personnel access logs information isolation\\\", \\\"similar technical results independent development\\\"]}\", \"normalized_exception_type\": \"Independent Development Exception\"}","{\"clause_category\": \"Independent Development\", \"clause_text\": \"If the receiving party can prove that it independently developed the same or similar results by relying on its own personnel, equipment, and research process without using, referring to, or accessing the disclosing party's confidential information, then such results are not automatically subject to the restrictions under this clause merely because they are similar to the confidential information. The party claiming independent development shall retain records sufficient to explain the research and development process and information isolation.\", \"scenario_question\": \"The receiving party's R&D team completed a similar data compression module two months after accessing the disclosing party's materials, but its code repository shows that some basic functions already existed in earlier versions; can the existing records prove that the module was independently developed?\", \"evidence_text\": \"The commit records in the receiving party's code repository show that the basic coding framework and general validation functions were completed before the R&D personnel accessed the disclosing party's materials. After accessing the materials, the team added compression parameter selection, exception fallback, and caching strategy. The project documents record that the R&D goals were different from the disclosing party's module, but personnel access permission logs, branch isolation records, or section-by-section code similarity analysis have not yet been provided.\", \"source_reference\": \"Summary of the receiving party's R&D repository commit records, project design documents, and permission management list\"}","{\"applicability\": \"Further verification required\", \"boundary_conditions\": [\"Independent development should cover the specific results claimed for the exception, not merely the general basic functions therein\", \"The R&D process must maintain provable information isolation from the disclosed materials\", \"Similarity of results does not by itself exclude independent development, but a high degree of similarity and lack of process records will weaken the defense\"], \"risk_notes\": [\"The prior existence of basic code does not mean that the newly added compression strategy and caching solution were also independently formed\", \"R&D activities by personnel after accessing the materials may cause information contamination and need to be assessed together with access logs\", \"Project documents written after the fact or unilateral statements are usually insufficient to prove the complete independent development process\"], \"analysis\": \"The existing evidence can prove that the general framework already existed before access to the disclosed materials, but it cannot cover the compression parameter selection, exception fallback, and caching strategy added after access to the materials. The independent development exception requires proof of the specific results and their formation process, so the current conclusion can only be that further verification is required. Only after supplementing access isolation records, code similarity analysis, and continuous R&D documents can it be determined whether the newly added parts were truly independently formed.\"}","[{\"element_type\": \"Acquisition Method\", \"condition\": \"The results were formed through the receiving party's own resources and R&D activities without using, referring to, or accessing the other party's confidential information.\", \"legal_effect\": \"Even if the final results are similar to the confidential information, as long as the fact of independent development can be proven, the receiving party may claim that the results are not subject to the relevant confidentiality obligations.\", \"factual_indicators\": [\"Key code or design had an independent version before access to the confidential information\", \"There is information isolation among R&D personnel, project branches, and documents\", \"Commit records can continuously show the formation process from requirements to implementation\"]}, {\"element_type\": \"Burden of Proof\", \"condition\": \"The party claiming independent development can explain the source of the R&D through objective, continuous, and traceable records, rather than relying only on similarity of results or statements by R&D personnel.\", \"legal_effect\": \"Without records of the R&D process and access isolation, the probative value of the independent development defense decreases, and it may be necessary to further determine whether there are facts of referring to or absorbing confidential information.\", \"factual_indicators\": [\"The version control system has a timeline that cannot be arbitrarily modified\", \"Design documents record the evolution of the solution and the reasons for decisions\", \"Access logs can confirm when relevant personnel accessed the disclosing party's materials\"]}]","[{\"requirement\": \"Prove that the key technical solution of the similar module had begun to take shape or had a runnable version before access to the disclosing party's materials.\", \"acceptable_evidence\": [\"Timestamped code commit records\", \"Early test reports and build artifacts\", \"R&D plans, design documents, and internal review records\"], \"verification_method\": \"Check the functional scope of early versions according to the timeline, and compare them item by item with the specific technical features of the final module and the disclosed materials.\", \"support_status\": true}, {\"requirement\": \"Prove that the R&D team did not use or refer to the disclosing party's confidential materials while developing the newly added functions.\", \"acceptable_evidence\": [\"File access logs\", \"Code repository permission and branch isolation records\", \"Written statements by R&D personnel and project meeting records\"], \"verification_method\": \"Check personnel access permissions, material download records, project branches, and meeting times to confirm that there is no suspicious contact chain between R&D activities and the disclosed materials.\", \"support_status\": false}, {\"requirement\": \"Prove that the newly added design in the final module came from its own R&D process and was not rewritten or extracted from the disclosed materials.\", \"acceptable_evidence\": [\"Design iteration documents\", \"Code similarity analysis reports\", \"Independent test records and technical review opinions\"], \"verification_method\": \"Compare the newly added algorithms, parameter selection, and exception handling logic at the code and document levels, and trace the reasons for their formation and the time of first appearance.\", \"support_status\": false}]","{\"relevance_score\": 0.94, \"sufficiency_score\": 0.61, \"evidence_role\": \"Directly supports that the basic framework was formed before access to the materials, and uses project documents to provide indirect corroboration of different R&D goals; however, it cannot by itself prove that subsequent newly added functions did not refer to the disclosed materials.\", \"missing_evidence\": [\"Logs of R&D personnel access to and downloading of the disclosed materials\", \"Project branch and permission isolation records\", \"Similarity analysis of code and technical features between the final module and the disclosed module\", \"Design iteration and review records for the newly added functions\"]}","{\"question_intent\": \"Determine whether similar technical results originated from independent R&D, and identify the process evidence and information isolation requirements needed for the independent development defense.\", \"key_terms\": [\"independent development\", \"information isolation\", \"R&D records\", \"code commit timeline\", \"access logs\", \"similarity of results\"], \"answer_focus\": \"A distinction should be made between basic code that existed before access to the disclosed materials and technical solutions newly added after access, focusing on verifying access records, R&D timeline, and code similarity, rather than drawing conclusions only from similarity of results or the existence of early code.\", \"retrieval_keywords\": [\"independent development confidential information burden of proof\", \"code commit records independent development defense\", \"R&D personnel access logs information isolation\", \"similar technical results independent development\"]}","Independent Development Exception",{"id":671,"relate_table":645,"relate_id":672,"file_size":572,"file_name":673,"path":8,"duration":572,"cate":483,"file_format":648,"audio_rate":8,"audio_channel":522,"audio_bit_depth":522,"quality":8,"annotation":674,"cate_name":650,"raw_record":675,"boundary_analysis":676,"exception_elements":677,"proof_requirements":678,"evidence_assessment":679,"retrieval_annotation":680,"normalized_exception_type":681},15172,765927943,"样例_1.json","{\"raw_record\": \"{\\\"clause_category\\\": \\\"Public Information\\\", \\\"clause_text\\\": \\\"If the relevant information was already lawfully public before the receiving party obtained or used it, or thereafter entered the public domain not due to the receiving party's breach of confidentiality obligations, then such information is not information subject to confidentiality protection under this clause. However, if only part of the content is public, or if publicly available materials are organized or combined through a specific method to form non-public analytical results, this does not automatically mean that all information is public.\\\", \\\"scenario_question\\\": \\\"The target technical parameters once appeared in the supplier's public product manual. Can the receiving party on this basis claim that the relevant technical materials as a whole fall within the public information exception and that it bears no confidentiality obligation?\\\", \\\"evidence_text\\\": \\\"The supplier's public product manual published before the receiving party accessed the materials at issue listed the equipment's rated power, interface type, and dimensions, and the web page could be accessed without logging in. The manual did not disclose the control algorithm, fault thresholds, parameter combination logic, or internal test data. The technical materials at issue simultaneously contain the above public parameters and an undisclosed parameter mapping table and debugging process.\\\", \\\"source_reference\\\": \\\"Comparison table between excerpts from the supplier's public product manual and the technical materials at issue, pages 2-4\\\"}\", \"boundary_analysis\": \"{\\\"applicability\\\": \\\"Further verification required\\\", \\\"boundary_conditions\\\": [\\\"The public status must have occurred before the receiving party obtained the materials, or the information entered the public domain afterwards but cannot be attributed to the receiving party's breach\\\", \\\"The exception is limited to technical content that was actually made public and is substantially identical\\\", \\\"Public basic parameters and undisclosed combination relationships, algorithms, and debugging methods should be assessed separately\\\"], \\\"risk_notes\\\": [\\\"A few public parameters alone cannot prove that the entire set of technical materials has been made public\\\", \\\"If the public manual was leaked by an entity without authority, the public status may not produce the effect of an exception\\\", \\\"Using as a whole results formed by combining public and non-public information may still breach confidentiality obligations\\\"], \\\"analysis\\\": \\\"The existing evidence clearly supports that rated power, interface type, and dimensions are publicly accessible content, but it also clearly indicates that the parameter mapping table, control algorithm, and debugging process do not appear in the manual. Therefore, the public information exception cannot be extended to the entire set of technical materials. Only after supplementing the complete version, time, and authorization source, and completing an item-by-item comparison, can it be determined which parts fall within the exception.\\\"}\", \"exception_elements\": \"[{\\\"element_type\\\": \\\"Factual Condition\\\", \\\"condition\\\": \\\"The relevant information was already lawfully and freely accessible to the public without specific authorization before the confidentiality obligation arose, or later lawfully entered the public domain.\\\", \\\"legal_effect\\\": \\\"For the portion that is already public and substantially identical to the claimed content, this confidentiality information protection exception does not apply; in principle, the receiving party does not bear a confidentiality obligation for using that public portion.\\\", \\\"factual_indicators\\\": [\\\"The publication time of the public page or publication is earlier than the time the receiving party obtained the materials\\\", \\\"The public can obtain the relevant content without circumventing access restrictions\\\", \\\"The public content is substantially identical in technical details to the information at issue\\\"]}, {\\\"element_type\\\": \\\"Scope Condition\\\", \\\"condition\\\": \\\"The exception covers only the content actually made public and does not automatically cover unique analyses, parameter relationships, or methods of operation formed by combining public and non-public information.\\\", \\\"legal_effect\\\": \\\"Basic facts in public materials may be claimed as an exception, but undisclosed combination structures, derived results, and internal methods may still be subject to confidentiality obligations.\\\", \\\"factual_indicators\\\": [\\\"The public manual lists only individual parameters and does not disclose the mapping relationships among parameters\\\", \\\"The materials at issue contain test data or debugging steps that do not exist in the public materials\\\", \\\"Technical personnel need additional derivation to obtain the conclusions at issue from the public content\\\"]}]\", \"proof_requirements\": \"[{\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the relevant content was lawfully made public to the public before the receiving party obtained the materials.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"Public web page archives with publication time and version information\\\", \\\"Formal publications or public product manuals\\\", \\\"Records of pages accessible without special permissions\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Check the publication time, access conditions, and version of the public materials, and compare the scope of content item by item with the materials at issue.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": true}, {\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the materials at issue are substantially the same as the public materials in substantive content, rather than merely sharing several basic parameters.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"Item-by-item technical feature comparison table\\\", \\\"Expert comparison opinions\\\", \\\"Complete textual or data comparison between the public version and the version at issue\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Distinguish public individual facts from undisclosed combinations, derivations, and methods of operation, and check whether new technical content has been added.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": false}, {\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Rule out situations where the public source itself breached a confidentiality obligation or was disclosed without authorization.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"Proof of rights of the publishing entity\\\", \\\"Records of authorized publication\\\", \\\"Public disclosure permission clauses in contracts\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Verify whether the publishing entity has the right to publicly disclose the relevant content, and examine whether there was disclosure through breach of confidentiality, infringement, or beyond the scope of authorization.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": false}]\", \"evidence_assessment\": \"{\\\"relevance_score\\\": 0.96, \\\"sufficiency_score\\\": 0.68, \\\"evidence_role\\\": \\\"Directly supports that some technical parameters have been made public, while conversely limiting the treatment of undisclosed parameter combinations, control algorithms, and debugging processes as public information as a whole.\\\", \\\"missing_evidence\\\": [\\\"Complete version of the public manual and verifiable publication time\\\", \\\"Item-by-item content comparison between the technical materials at issue and the public manual\\\", \\\"Authorization basis for whether the supplier has the right to publicly disclose the relevant technical content\\\"]}\", \"retrieval_annotation\": \"{\\\"question_intent\\\": \\\"Determine the time, content identity, and scope boundary of the public information exception, and distinguish already public basic facts from undisclosed combined results.\\\", \\\"key_terms\\\": [\\\"public information exception\\\", \\\"lawful public disclosure\\\", \\\"public domain\\\", \\\"substantial identity\\\", \\\"parameter combination\\\", \\\"confidentiality obligation\\\"], \\\"answer_focus\\\": \\\"Priority should be given to verifying publication time, access conditions, publication authorization, and the scope of substantive correspondence between the public content and the materials at issue; the disclosure of some parameters cannot be used to presume that the entire set of materials is public.\\\", \\\"retrieval_keywords\\\": [\\\"public information confidentiality exception publication time\\\", \\\"technical parameters public manual substantially identical\\\", \\\"public information parameter combination confidentiality\\\", \\\"public domain lawful disclosure\\\"]}\", \"normalized_exception_type\": \"Public Information Exception\"}","{\"clause_category\": \"Public Information\", \"clause_text\": \"If the relevant information was already lawfully public before the receiving party obtained or used it, or thereafter entered the public domain not due to the receiving party's breach of confidentiality obligations, then such information is not information subject to confidentiality protection under this clause. However, if only part of the content is public, or if publicly available materials are organized or combined through a specific method to form non-public analytical results, this does not automatically mean that all information is public.\", \"scenario_question\": \"The target technical parameters once appeared in the supplier's public product manual. Can the receiving party on this basis claim that the relevant technical materials as a whole fall within the public information exception and that it bears no confidentiality obligation?\", \"evidence_text\": \"The supplier's public product manual published before the receiving party accessed the materials at issue listed the equipment's rated power, interface type, and dimensions, and the web page could be accessed without logging in. The manual did not disclose the control algorithm, fault thresholds, parameter combination logic, or internal test data. The technical materials at issue simultaneously contain the above public parameters and an undisclosed parameter mapping table and debugging process.\", \"source_reference\": \"Comparison table between excerpts from the supplier's public product manual and the technical materials at issue, pages 2-4\"}","{\"applicability\": \"Further verification required\", \"boundary_conditions\": [\"The public status must have occurred before the receiving party obtained the materials, or the information entered the public domain afterwards but cannot be attributed to the receiving party's breach\", \"The exception is limited to technical content that was actually made public and is substantially identical\", \"Public basic parameters and undisclosed combination relationships, algorithms, and debugging methods should be assessed separately\"], \"risk_notes\": [\"A few public parameters alone cannot prove that the entire set of technical materials has been made public\", \"If the public manual was leaked by an entity without authority, the public status may not produce the effect of an exception\", \"Using as a whole results formed by combining public and non-public information may still breach confidentiality obligations\"], \"analysis\": \"The existing evidence clearly supports that rated power, interface type, and dimensions are publicly accessible content, but it also clearly indicates that the parameter mapping table, control algorithm, and debugging process do not appear in the manual. Therefore, the public information exception cannot be extended to the entire set of technical materials. Only after supplementing the complete version, time, and authorization source, and completing an item-by-item comparison, can it be determined which parts fall within the exception.\"}","[{\"element_type\": \"Factual Condition\", \"condition\": \"The relevant information was already lawfully and freely accessible to the public without specific authorization before the confidentiality obligation arose, or later lawfully entered the public domain.\", \"legal_effect\": \"For the portion that is already public and substantially identical to the claimed content, this confidentiality information protection exception does not apply; in principle, the receiving party does not bear a confidentiality obligation for using that public portion.\", \"factual_indicators\": [\"The publication time of the public page or publication is earlier than the time the receiving party obtained the materials\", \"The public can obtain the relevant content without circumventing access restrictions\", \"The public content is substantially identical in technical details to the information at issue\"]}, {\"element_type\": \"Scope Condition\", \"condition\": \"The exception covers only the content actually made public and does not automatically cover unique analyses, parameter relationships, or methods of operation formed by combining public and non-public information.\", \"legal_effect\": \"Basic facts in public materials may be claimed as an exception, but undisclosed combination structures, derived results, and internal methods may still be subject to confidentiality obligations.\", \"factual_indicators\": [\"The public manual lists only individual parameters and does not disclose the mapping relationships among parameters\", \"The materials at issue contain test data or debugging steps that do not exist in the public materials\", \"Technical personnel need additional derivation to obtain the conclusions at issue from the public content\"]}]","[{\"requirement\": \"Prove that the relevant content was lawfully made public to the public before the receiving party obtained the materials.\", \"acceptable_evidence\": [\"Public web page archives with publication time and version information\", \"Formal publications or public product manuals\", \"Records of pages accessible without special permissions\"], \"verification_method\": \"Check the publication time, access conditions, and version of the public materials, and compare the scope of content item by item with the materials at issue.\", \"support_status\": true}, {\"requirement\": \"Prove that the materials at issue are substantially the same as the public materials in substantive content, rather than merely sharing several basic parameters.\", \"acceptable_evidence\": [\"Item-by-item technical feature comparison table\", \"Expert comparison opinions\", \"Complete textual or data comparison between the public version and the version at issue\"], \"verification_method\": \"Distinguish public individual facts from undisclosed combinations, derivations, and methods of operation, and check whether new technical content has been added.\", \"support_status\": false}, {\"requirement\": \"Rule out situations where the public source itself breached a confidentiality obligation or was disclosed without authorization.\", \"acceptable_evidence\": [\"Proof of rights of the publishing entity\", \"Records of authorized publication\", \"Public disclosure permission clauses in contracts\"], \"verification_method\": \"Verify whether the publishing entity has the right to publicly disclose the relevant content, and examine whether there was disclosure through breach of confidentiality, infringement, or beyond the scope of authorization.\", \"support_status\": false}]","{\"relevance_score\": 0.96, \"sufficiency_score\": 0.68, \"evidence_role\": \"Directly supports that some technical parameters have been made public, while conversely limiting the treatment of undisclosed parameter combinations, control algorithms, and debugging processes as public information as a whole.\", \"missing_evidence\": [\"Complete version of the public manual and verifiable publication time\", \"Item-by-item content comparison between the technical materials at issue and the public manual\", \"Authorization basis for whether the supplier has the right to publicly disclose the relevant technical content\"]}","{\"question_intent\": \"Determine the time, content identity, and scope boundary of the public information exception, and distinguish already public basic facts from undisclosed combined results.\", \"key_terms\": [\"public information exception\", \"lawful public disclosure\", \"public domain\", \"substantial identity\", \"parameter combination\", \"confidentiality obligation\"], \"answer_focus\": \"Priority should be given to verifying publication time, access conditions, publication authorization, and the scope of substantive correspondence between the public content and the materials at issue; the disclosure of some parameters cannot be used to presume that the entire set of materials is public.\", \"retrieval_keywords\": [\"public information confidentiality exception publication time\", \"technical parameters public manual substantially identical\", \"public information parameter combination confidentiality\", \"public domain lawful disclosure\"]}","Public Information Exception","{\"raw_record\":\"{\\\"clause_category\\\": \\\"Lawful Third-Party Acquisition\\\", \\\"clause_text\\\": \\\"If the receiving party lawfully obtains the information from a third party authorized to disclose the relevant information, and at the time of acquisition the receiving party did not know and had no reasonable reason to know that the third party was under an obligation not to disclose it, then such information is not automatically subject to the restrictions of this clause merely because other confidentiality claims also exist. The third-party acquisition exception does not apply to information obtained by theft, fraud, breach of contract, or by means of knowing that confidentiality restrictions exist.\\\", \\\"scenario_question\\\": \\\"The receiving party obtained a set of interface documents from a software supplier; the supplier has a license agreement with the original rights holder and is authorized to provide the documents to partners; can the receiving party claim the lawful third-party acquisition exception?\\\", \\\"evidence_text\\\": \\\"A summary of the license agreement issued by the software supplier states that it may provide the interface documents to approved integration partners and may grant partners the right to use them internally for integration and maintenance purposes. The receiving party downloaded the documents through the supplier's partner portal, and the portal required login with an approved enterprise account. The receiving party currently keeps the supplier's authorization confirmation letter and download records, but has not yet obtained the complete agreement between the original rights holder and the supplier, nor verified whether the documents contain internal source code explanations beyond the scope of the license.\\\", \\\"source_reference\\\": \\\"Supplier license agreement summary, authorization confirmation letter, and partner portal download records\\\"}\",\"boundary_analysis\":\"{\\\"applicability\\\": \\\"Further verification required\\\", \\\"boundary_conditions\\\": [\\\"The supplier must have valid authorization for the specific interface documents provided, and not merely general sales or integration qualifications\\\", \\\"The receiving party's good faith should be assessed based on the objective circumstances at the time of acquisition; obvious warnings will affect the claim to the exception\\\", \\\"Lawful acquisition does not mean that the documents may be used beyond the licensed purpose, personnel scope, or content scope\\\"], \\\"risk_notes\\\": [\\\"The authorization confirmation letter may prove only some documents or some uses, and cannot replace the complete authorization chain\\\", \\\"If the receiving party knows that the documents contain restricted internal materials of the original rights holder, the good-faith acquisition defense may fail\\\", \\\"Even if the acquisition method is lawful, copying, disclosure, or reverse engineering beyond the licensed scope may still create liability\\\"], \\\"analysis\\\": \\\"The receiving party obtained the documents through a formal partner portal and kept download records; the existing evidence strongly supports that the acquisition channel was lawful and that the receiving party had no obvious bad faith. However, the supplier's authorization chain for the specific documents and the receiving party's actual scope of use have not been fully proven, so it cannot be directly found that the third-party acquisition exception applies to all documents. The complete license agreement, document scope correspondence table, and use records should be supplemented; before verification is completed, the conclusion on the exception is that further verification is required.\\\"}\",\"exception_elements\":\"[{\\\"element_type\\\": \\\"Third-Party Rights Condition\\\", \\\"condition\\\": \\\"The third party disclosing or providing the information has ownership, licensing rights, or other lawful rights sufficient to authorize it to provide the relevant content to the receiving party.\\\", \\\"legal_effect\\\": \\\"The receiving party may claim based on a lawful source that the acquisition method itself does not constitute a breach of confidentiality obligations, but the scope of the exception must not exceed the third party's actual authorization scope.\\\", \\\"factual_indicators\\\": [\\\"There is a valid license or sublicense document between the third party and the original rights holder\\\", \\\"The authorization terms expressly permit providing the relevant materials to specified partners\\\", \\\"The provided content is consistent with the scope of content the third party is authorized to provide\\\"]}, {\\\"element_type\\\": \\\"Acquisition Method and Subjective State\\\", \\\"condition\\\": \\\"The receiving party obtained the information through normal commercial channels, and at the time of acquisition did not know and had no reasonable reason to know that the third party was under an obligation not to disclose it.\\\", \\\"legal_effect\\\": \\\"Within the scope of good-faith and lawful acquisition, the receiving party may generally claim the third-party acquisition exception; however, use after acquisition remains subject to the permitted purpose, scope, and other contractual restrictions.\\\", \\\"factual_indicators\\\": [\\\"Downloaded through a reviewed partner portal or formal contractual channel\\\", \\\"The receiving party used an enterprise account and obtained the materials according to the supplier's process\\\", \\\"The transaction documents contain no obvious confidentiality restrictions, rights defects, or abnormal source indications\\\"]}]\",\"proof_requirements\":\"[{\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the supplier has the right to provide the interface documents to the receiving party.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"License agreement between the original rights holder and the supplier\\\", \\\"Sublicense or partner distribution authorization\\\", \\\"Formal authorization confirmation letter from the supplier\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Check the entities in the authorization chain, the authorized objects, authorized content, territory, and term, and confirm that the interface documents fall within the authorized scope.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": false}, {\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the receiving party obtained the documents through lawful channels, and that at the time of acquisition there was no known or should-have-known rights defect.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"Partner portal account review records\\\", \\\"Download logs\\\", \\\"Purchase contracts, orders, and supplier compliance statements\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Check the account, download time, transaction documents, and supplier notices to determine whether the receiving party followed the normal acquisition process and whether there were obvious warnings.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": true}, {\\\"requirement\\\": \\\"Prove that the receiving party's use did not exceed the purpose and scope of the third party's license.\\\", \\\"acceptable_evidence\\\": [\\\"Integration project scope statement\\\", \\\"Internal access and use records\\\", \\\"Use restriction clauses in the license agreement\\\"], \\\"verification_method\\\": \\\"Check the actual use objects, personnel, purposes, and storage methods item by item against the license terms, and exclude content beyond the scope such as source code or unauthorized internal explanations.\\\", \\\"support_status\\\": false}]\",\"evidence_assessment\":\"{\\\"relevance_score\\\": 0.97, \\\"sufficiency_score\\\": 0.76, \\\"evidence_role\\\": \\\"Directly supports that the receiving party lawfully obtained the documents through a reviewed portal, and the authorization confirmation letter indirectly supports that the supplier has the authority to provide them; however, the complete authorization chain and the specific content scope of the documents have not been fully verified.\\\", \\\"missing_evidence\\\": [\\\"Complete license or sublicense agreement between the original rights holder and the supplier\\\", \\\"Correspondence between the interface document catalog and the authorized scope\\\", \\\"Records of the receiving party's actual scope of use and whether unauthorized source code explanations are included\\\"]}\",\"retrieval_annotation\":\"{\\\"question_intent\\\": \\\"Determine whether confidential information obtained from a third party has a lawful authorization source, and distinguish the boundary between lawful acquisition and use beyond scope.\\\", \\\"key_terms\\\": [\\\"lawful third-party acquisition\\\", \\\"authorization chain\\\", \\\"good-faith acquisition\\\", \\\"obligation not to disclose\\\", \\\"license scope\\\", \\\"lawful channel\\\"], \\\"answer_focus\\\": \\\"Priority should be given to verifying the third party's authorization rights over the specific materials, the receiving party's good-faith state at the time of acquisition, and whether subsequent use complies with the licensed purpose; it cannot be presumed from the supplier's authorization confirmation letter alone that all use is lawful.\\\", \\\"retrieval_keywords\\\": [\\\"lawful third-party acquisition confidential information\\\", \\\"third-party authorization chain license agreement\\\", \\\"good faith acquisition did not know should not have known\\\", \\\"partner portal lawful acquisition confidential materials\\\"]}\",\"normalized_exception_type\":\"Lawful Third-Party Acquisition Exception\"}","MOBIUSI INC","https:\u002F\u002Fstatic.mobiusi.com\u002Fmobiwusi\u002F20250829\u002F7bf4ac62b4533e2b809998a6f1c5491e.png?Expires=1792463130&OSSAccessKeyId=LTAI5tH8MQqhgeiAtrzCHrxM&Signature=v6Tr8jBrdm4s5wU1SnnyGsYg%2Bhw%3D&x-oss-process=image%2Fresize%2Cm_fill%2Cw_35%2Ch_35",[686,692],{"type":687,"title":688,"count_data":689},"bar","Length distribution",[690],{"name":691,"value":483},"1k lower",{"type":693,"title":694,"count_data":695},"pie","Language distribution",[696],{"name":697,"value":483},"English"]