《相邦之道》的整體結構，因篇末「女（言西）」二字之隸定而呈現不同的形貌。張光裕先生隸定為「如斯」，依此無法理解孔子回答哀公之內容，且在整體結構上亦不可能以此為總結。作者認為應當隸定為「汝察」，將「（言西）」視為形聲文字，因聲符「西」與「察」在古韻中發音相近而產生通用假借。其次，若隸定為「如斯」，在哀公與孔子問答之前，應該先存在孔子向子貢講解「相邦之道」之情景；但是若隸定為「汝察」則無此必要。因此，《相邦之道》的整體結構是將五階段的論述邏輯，推演於4至6枚的竹簡上：(1)哀公問孔子何謂相邦之道，(2)孔子對相邦之道之回答，(3)哀公再問孔子何謂民事，(4)孔子對民事之回答，(5)孔子退朝後與子貢之問答。其基本結構與《魯邦大旱》相似，可能是同一作者為。

The interpretation of the whole argumentative structure of “XiangbangZhi Dao"相邦之道(The Way of the Prime Minister) in the Shanghai Museum bamboo strips is largely predicated on an understanding of its last two characters:女誼_ Cheung Kwong-yue (Zhang Kuang-yu) reads these characters as “rusi"如斯(like this)， but such an interpretation does not allow us to understand the meaning of Confucius' response to Lord Ai- Moreover， such a remark would probably not appear at the end of an argument.
Instead， I try to read these characters as “rucha"汝察(understand by yourself). On the basis of this textual reading， we can divide the whole argument into five stages: (1) the question by Lord Ai of the state of Lu on what “theway of the prime minister" is; (2) the answer by Confucius; (3) Lord Ai's question about the rule of his people; (4) the answer by Confucius; and (5) a dialogue between Confucius and his disciple Zi Gong after Confucius' return from Lord Ai's palace. Since these argumentative steps resemble that of “Lubang da han" (The Long Drought of the State of Lu)， which is included in the same Shanghai Museum bamboo strips， it is fairly probable that these two essays were written by the same author.