Interface Routing Framework with Cabinet–Drawer Model (CDM) : A Structural Method for Reading One Event-Flow Across Multiple Legal Regimes

Abstract

This paper addresses a recurring structural obstacle in cross-domain legal analysis: legal domains such as tax, contract, tort, trust, and public law operate as self-contained semantic systems whose classificatory logics do not compose into a single interoperable structure without fragile and costly reconciliation. Approaches that rely on semantic alignment or shared vocabularies face persistent instability when domains encode different normative objects, constraints, and decision outputs. Instead of pursuing semantic unification, this paper introduces a protocol-level method: the Interface Routing Framework. The framework treats each legal domain as an interface processor acting on a shared, observable event-flow. Under this representation, a single flow can be routed across multiple domains and encoded at each interface without requiring semantic alignment. Cross-domain non-alignment is not resolved but recorded as a structured output. A single anchor role—an owner-manager who is both shareholder and managerial decision-maker—is used as a stable event-flow carrier throughout the paper. This anchor does not function as a doctrinal fact pattern; it operates as a tracing unit whose passage across interfaces renders mismatch and distortion observable and recordable. To stabilize routing observability, the paper adopts a minimal structural condition derived from the Cabinet–Drawer Model (CDM): the joint presence of horizontal and vertical support capacities. The horizontal dimension captures cross-interface movement of the event-flow, while the vertical dimension captures its capacity to remain admissible across successive stages of processing. When both dimensions remain operative, the flow remains traceable across interfaces; when either dimension fails, the routing structure becomes partially or fully non-operative. This condition aligns with a coordinate-based structural constraint expressed as F^GC = X × Y, where X denotes cross-interface continuity of the event-flow and Y denotes its post-processing admissibility capacity. The superscript GC specifies a going-concern constraint: the routing structure is treated as operative only when both dimensions remain non-zero. The paper contributes four components: (i) a routing grammar expressed as Flow → Interface₁ → Interface₂ → … → Output; (ii) a lab-usable interface table specifying inputs, transformation types, mismatch/distortion flags, and output classes; (iii) a minimal conflict-handling rule that records cross-domain mismatch without resolving it; and (iv) compact demonstrations of end-to-end encoding across heterogeneous legal interfaces. The resulting method enables cross-domain comparability at the level of routing and representation, without reliance on semantic unification.