Towards a New Grammar of Reasoning for Artificial Legal Intelligence and the Mecelle as Its Semantic Protocol
Summary
This paper proposes the Mecellem semantic protocol, an ontologically grounded framework for artificial legal intelligence, arguing that legal reasoning requires dynamic, context-dependent meaning construction rather than mere codification or statistical pattern recognition.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 08/06/26, 07:44 AM
# Towards a New Grammar of Reasoning for Artificial Legal Intelligence and the Mecelle as Its Semantic Protocol Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04011](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04011) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.04011) > Abstract:This article examines the enduring epistemic and methodological crisis of traditional legal practice in light of the opportunities and constraints introduced by artificial intelligence\. It proposes an ontologically grounded framework termed the Mecellem semantic protocol as a response to this crisis\. The analysis focuses on the structural tension within law between maintaining normative coherence and adapting to evolving social and institutional conditions, and shows why approaches based solely on codification, positivist systematization, or quantitative methods such as jurimetrics are insufficient\. The article argues that legal reasoning cannot be reduced to data retrieval or statistical pattern recognition\. Instead, it is grounded in the premise that meaning is context\-dependent and must be dynamically reconstructed through ontologically defined entity categories and differentiated layers of knowledge\. Within this perspective, Mecellem reconceptualizes law not as a fixed system of rules, but as an ontodynamic architecture structured along the interconnected axes of ontology, epistemology, and methodology\. The transition from jurimetrics to a semantic protocol is presented not merely as a technical shift, but as a transformation in the foundations of legal knowledge\. The article further argues that neurosymbolic systems, knowledge graphs, and agentic artificial intelligence can effectively address persistent legal challenges only when embedded within such an ontodynamic framework\. By understanding law as a domain of ongoing formation rather than a completed rational totality, Mecellem advances a context\-sensitive, auditable, and coherent model for legal meaning production at both human and machine levels, offering a comprehensive framework for rethinking legal reasoning in the age of artificial intelligence\. ## Submission history From: F\. Gözde Kardeş Ms \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/84fe385a/2608.04011)\] **\[v1\]**Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:20:24 UTC \(1,572 KB\)
Similar Articles
Bridging Legal Interpretation and Formal Logic: Faithfulness, Assumption, and the Future of AI Legal Reasoning
This paper identifies a systematic gap between legal interpretation and formal logic in AI legal reasoning, proposes a neuro-symbolic approach to bridge it, and demonstrates substantial label shifts when re-annotating legal NLI data under strict formal entailment.
Which Changes Matter? Towards Trustworthy Legal AI via Relevance-Sensitive Evaluation and Solver-Grounded Reasoning
This paper introduces a relevance-sensitive evaluation suite for legal AI, demonstrating that LLMs are overly sensitive to legally irrelevant perturbations, and proposes LexGuard, an adversarial multi-agent framework using formal reasoning to improve legal reasoning reliability.
Simulate, Reason, Decide: Scientific Reasoning with LLMs for Simulation-Driven Decision Making
Researchers from the University of Michigan introduce MechSim, a mechanism-grounded neuro-symbolic reasoning framework that enables LLM agents to reason about the internal assumptions, dependencies, and execution behavior of scientific simulators rather than treating them as black boxes. The framework improves explanation quality and decision-making reliability across high-stakes domains like healthcare, finance, and public policy.
Frame-Conditioned Moral Computation in LLaMA 3.1-8B-Instruct: A Mechanistic Interpretability Audit of Ethical Reasoning
This paper uses mechanistic interpretability to audit ethical reasoning in LLaMA 3.1-8B-Instruct, finding a 'Situational Anchor Effect' where domain-specific representations dominate moral computation, and proposing 'Mechanistic Alignment' as a research program.
L-MAD: A Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Agent Debate Structures in Legal Reasoning
The paper introduces L-MAD, a framework for systematically evaluating multi-agent debate structures in legal textual entailment. It finds that increasing agent population improves accuracy but more debate rounds cause over-deliberation, with improvements of up to 8% over single-agent baselines.