uid
stringclasses
10 values
dataset_id
stringclasses
1 value
jurisdiction
stringclasses
3 values
court_level
stringclasses
5 values
year
int64
2.02k
2.02k
area_of_law
stringclasses
3 values
pillar
stringclasses
1 value
series
stringclasses
1 value
input_cause_of_action
stringclasses
10 values
input_required_elements
stringclasses
10 values
input_allegations_summary
stringclasses
10 values
input_evidence_signposted
stringclasses
10 values
input_remedy_pleaded
stringclasses
10 values
input_internal_consistency_signals
stringclasses
8 values
question
stringclasses
1 value
ground_truth_label
stringclasses
2 values
ground_truth_rationale
stringclasses
10 values
outcome_signal
stringclasses
4 values
early_window_months
int64
0
3
source_citation
stringclasses
1 value
PL-TR-001
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
UK
High Court
2,023
Commercial
legal_actors
3B
Breach of contract
Contract formation breach loss causation
Signed contract late delivery loss quantified
Contract emails delivery records invoices
Damages £450k plus interest
No contradictions
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Elements pleaded with evidence signposts and consistent remedy.
stable
0
Synthetic
PL-TR-002
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
UK
High Court
2,023
Commercial
legal_actors
3B
Misrepresentation
False statement reliance causation loss
Alleges false statements but does not plead reliance
No evidence list
Rescission and £2m damages
Missing reliance element
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Key element missing and proof posture unclear.
strike_out_risk
2
Synthetic
PL-TR-003
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
US
Federal
2,022
Employment
legal_actors
3B
Retaliation
Protected activity adverse action causation
Timeline complaint then termination
Complaint record HR emails
Backpay and reinstatement
Consistent chronology
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Elements covered with clear timeline and remedy fit.
stable
0
Synthetic
PL-TR-004
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
US
Federal
2,022
Employment
legal_actors
3B
Discrimination
Protected class adverse action inference
Alleges discrimination but facts contradict on comparator dates
No documents signposted
Punitive damages only
Internal contradictions
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Contradictory facts undermine element mapping and remedy posture.
dismissal_risk
3
Synthetic
PL-TR-005
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
UK
Tribunal
2,021
Employment
legal_actors
3B
Unfair dismissal
Dismissal potentially fair reason reasonableness procedure
Pleads procedural failures and appeal defect
Policies minutes appeal email
Compensation and reinstatement alternative
Consistent
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Matches elements and evidence with sensible remedies.
stable
0
Synthetic
PL-TR-006
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
UK
Tribunal
2,021
Employment
legal_actors
3B
Constructive dismissal
Fundamental breach resignation causation
Pleads breach but omits resignation date
No timeline evidence
Compensation
Missing resignation fact
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Missing resignation fact breaks causation element.
strike_out_risk
2
Synthetic
PL-TR-007
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
EU
Commercial Court
2,020
Commercial
legal_actors
3B
Non-payment
Contract invoice due non-payment
Pleads invoices issued and accepted
Invoices acceptance emails ledger
Payment plus interest
Consistent
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Straight element mapping with proof signposts.
stable
0
Synthetic
PL-TR-008
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
EU
Commercial Court
2,020
Commercial
legal_actors
3B
Unlawful termination
Contract breach by termination
Pleading ignores termination clause allowing termination
Contract clause contradicts
Injunction and €1m
Contradiction with contract terms
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Allegation conflicts with key contract term.
dismissal_risk
2
Synthetic
PL-TR-009
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
UK
County Court
2,022
Civil
legal_actors
3B
Negligence
Duty breach causation loss
Pleads hazard and injury with timeline
Photos incident report medical note
General damages and special damages
Consistent
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Elements present with evidence anchors.
stable
0
Synthetic
PL-TR-010
legal-pleading-allegation-element-proof-coherence-v0.1
UK
High Court
2,023
Commercial
legal_actors
3B
Fraud
False representation knowledge intent reliance loss
Pleads fraud but facts describe only breach
No fraud particulars
£5m damages
Overpleading signals
Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Cause of action misfit and particulars missing.
cost_sanction_risk
3
Synthetic