Clarifying user needs
Without current information, it’s risky for me to make assumptions. It’s better to ask the user what they specifically need, whether that's a translation, a source link, or a fact-check. I can help verify and gather credible sources, but I need to clarify what the user wants. Maybe they need a summary and context about a referee's past case. I should avoid guessing specific names and ask, "Do you want me to summarize, translate, or fact-check?"Explaining context in Chinese
I can summarize the situation in Chinese, highlighting that some headlines might be sensational and that context matters. The case could be from years ago, involving lower-division actions where cooperation with investigators results in leniency, which isn't necessarily related to their recent performance. I should suggest steps to verify, like checking articles from Gazzetta dello Sport or UEFA statements. I can offer to fetch sources if I'm allowed. Let’s create a one-sentence interpretation and then ask: 1) 查证 2) 背景 3) 翻译 4) 简述要点, while noting what info I need, like the match date or link.
你这条是转述新闻标题：米兰体育报称，执法“国米负于利物浦”那场的主裁曾涉及假球案，因主动自首才避免被终身禁赛。
你希望我做什么？
- 快速核查真伪与来源（需要允许我检索，或给我原文链接/比赛日期）
- 摘要要点与影响解读（不检索，基于通用背景给出中立分析）
- 补充该裁判的过往争议与时间线（需要确认具体是哪一场、哪位主裁）
- 翻译成英文
如果要核查，请提供：
- 比赛时间或赛季（例如 2022 欧冠1/8决赛首回合/次回合，或其他场次） 
- 新闻链接或发布平台截图/URL
不检索下的简要提示：
- “自首免终身禁”通常指该裁判在本国联赛早年的调查中配合取证，最终减轻处罚，并不自动等同于近期执法存在问题。
- 验证路径建议：米体原文→主裁姓名确认→其足协/欧足联纪律通报或可信媒体（路透、BBC、The Athletic）交叉核对。需要我来跑这套核查的话告诉我即可。