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 9
values | pillar stringclasses 1
value | series stringclasses 1
value | input_statutory_text stringclasses 10
values | input_claimed_intent stringclasses 10
values | input_interpretation_move stringclasses 10
values | input_context_signals stringclasses 10
values | input_legislative_history stringclasses 10
values | input_judicial_comment stringclasses 9
values | question stringclasses 1
value | ground_truth_label stringclasses 2
values | ground_truth_rationale stringclasses 10
values | outcome_signal stringclasses 5
values | early_window_months int64 0 9 | source_citation stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ST-TR-001 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,021 | Consumer | substantive_law | 1A | Statute requires written notice before fee | Protect consumers from hidden fees | Court reads written as including electronic notice | Electronic notice widely accepted | Committee notes reference modern methods | Court says purpose supports inclusion | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Text and intent both support modern notice methods. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ST-TR-002 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,020 | Tax | substantive_law | 1A | Relief applies to manufacturing plant | Encourage industrial investment | Court extends to digital assets with no physical plant | Digital economy cited | No history covering digital assets | Judge notes strained extension | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Extension conflicts with clear physical plant language. | challenge_risk | 8 | Synthetic |
ST-TR-003 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,019 | Employment | substantive_law | 1A | Overtime applies to hourly workers | Protect wage earners | Court applies to gig workers based on control factors | Work patterns similar to employment | Legislative debates broad | Court aligns with protective purpose | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Intent and evolving context support reading. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ST-TR-004 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | EU | Appellate | 2,018 | Competition | substantive_law | 1A | Ban on price fixing agreements | Prevent cartel harm | Court includes algorithmic pricing coordination | Digital coordination evident | History silent on algorithms | Court applies purpose-based reasoning | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Purpose fits new coordination forms. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ST-TR-005 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,022 | Immigration | substantive_law | 1A | Appeal allowed within 14 days | Ensure prompt resolution | Court extends deadline to 30 days for fairness | Hardship cited | History sets strict limit | Judge acknowledges departure | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Clear time limit overridden by policy concerns. | appeal_risk | 6 | Synthetic |
ST-TR-006 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,017 | Environment | substantive_law | 1A | Permit required for discharge into waters | Protect water quality | Court includes indirect discharge via pipeline | Environmental harm shown | History supports broad protection | Court aligns with purpose | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Text and intent both support inclusion. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ST-TR-007 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | EU | Trial | 2,023 | AI Regulation | substantive_law | 1A | Regulation covers automated decision systems | Ensure fairness | Court excludes semi-automated tools | Literal reading adopted | Intent suggests broad oversight | Court narrows scope | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Narrow reading conflicts with broader intent. | reform_risk | 9 | Synthetic |
ST-TR-008 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | UK | Court of Appeal | 2,016 | Property | substantive_law | 1A | Lease requires written consent | Protect landlord control | Email consent accepted | Modern practice accepted | History neutral | Court sees no conflict | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Modern communication fits text and purpose. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ST-TR-009 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | US | State Court | 2,018 | Criminal | substantive_law | 1A | Weapon enhancement applies to firearms | Deter firearm use | Court applies to imitation gun | Public fear cited | History specific to firearms | Judge notes stretch | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Extension conflicts with firearm-specific text. | reversal_risk | 7 | Synthetic |
ST-TR-010 | legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1 | EU | Appellate | 2,021 | Consumer | substantive_law | 1A | Refund required for defective goods | Protect consumers | Court includes digital downloads | Digital goods common | History supports protection | Court aligns with purpose | Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Purpose supports inclusion of digital goods. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.