Datasets:
uid stringclasses 10
values | dataset_id stringclasses 1
value | jurisdiction stringclasses 3
values | court_level stringclasses 6
values | year int64 2.02k 2.02k | area_of_law stringclasses 5
values | pillar stringclasses 1
value | series stringclasses 1
value | input_cause_of_action stringclasses 10
values | input_required_elements stringclasses 10
values | input_facts_pleaded_by_element stringclasses 10
values | input_internal_consistency_signals stringclasses 7
values | input_remedy_sought stringclasses 7
values | input_evidence_support_signals stringclasses 10
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 4 | source_citation stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PL-TR-001 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,022 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Breach of contract | (1) contract (2) breach (3) loss | Contract identified; breach dates pleaded; loss quantified | No contradictions | Damages | Emails and invoices referenced | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Each element has pleaded facts and remedy fits. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PL-TR-002 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,022 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Misrepresentation | (1) representation (2) falsity (3) reliance (4) loss | Representation vague; reliance not pleaded; loss asserted | Internal inconsistency on timing | Rescission and damages | No documents referenced | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Missing reliance facts and timing contradictions create strike out risk. | amendment_risk | 2 | Synthetic |
PL-TR-003 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,021 | Employment | adjudicative_process | 2C | Retaliation | (1) protected activity (2) adverse action (3) causation | Complaint date pleaded; termination date pleaded; temporal link alleged | Consistent timeline | Reinstatement and damages | HR emails referenced | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Elements supported with dates and causation narrative. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PL-TR-004 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,021 | Employment | adjudicative_process | 2C | Discrimination | (1) protected class (2) adverse action (3) comparator or inference | Class stated; adverse action stated; comparator facts absent | Some paragraphs contradict reason for dismissal | Damages | No comparator evidence cited | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Inference facts missing and internal contradiction weakens claim. | dismissal_risk | 3 | Synthetic |
PL-TR-005 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | UK | Crown Court | 2,020 | Criminal | adjudicative_process | 2C | Defence alibi narrative | (1) location (2) time (3) corroboration | Location and time precise; corroborating witness named | Consistent | Acquittal | CCTV and receipt referenced | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Narrative stable with corroboration anchors. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PL-TR-006 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,023 | Personal Injury | adjudicative_process | 2C | Negligence | (1) duty (2) breach (3) causation (4) loss | Duty asserted; breach vague; causation chain missing; loss listed | Inconsistency on accident mechanism | Damages | No medical evidence referenced | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Missing breach detail and causation facts create amendment risk. | amendment_risk | 4 | Synthetic |
PL-TR-007 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | EU | Commercial Court | 2,019 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Unjust enrichment | (1) enrichment (2) at claimant expense (3) unjust factor | Payments pleaded; expense pleaded; unjust factor specified | Consistent | Restitution | Bank records referenced | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Elements supported with payment facts and unjust factor. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PL-TR-008 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | EU | Commercial Court | 2,020 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Fraud | (1) misstatement (2) knowledge (3) intent (4) reliance (5) loss | Misstatement alleged; knowledge not particularised; reliance unclear | Contradictory chronology | Damages and punitive style relief | No specific documents | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Particularisation missing and chronology conflicts. | strike_out_risk | 2 | Synthetic |
PL-TR-009 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | UK | Tribunal | 2,021 | Employment | adjudicative_process | 2C | Unfair dismissal | (1) dismissal (2) reason (3) fairness process | Dismissal date; reason alleged; procedural defects pleaded | Consistent | Compensation | Meeting notes referenced | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Facts map to statutory framework and remedy fits. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PL-TR-010 | legal-pleading-fact-element-coherence-v0.1 | US | State | 2,018 | Consumer | adjudicative_process | 2C | Breach of warranty | (1) warranty (2) breach (3) notice (4) damages | Warranty stated; breach stated; notice not pleaded; damages asserted | Consistent | Damages | Purchase record referenced | Is pleading coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Notice element lacks pleaded facts. | dismissal_risk | 3 | Synthetic |
What this dataset is
You receive
cause of action elements facts by element consistency signals remedy evidence support signals
You decide
coherent or incoherent
Daily use
pleading QC
amendment triage
strike out risk flag
- Downloads last month
- 10