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 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.