Datasets:

ClarusC64
/

legal-statutory-uniformity-fracture-detection-v0.1

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_statute_text stringclasses 10 values	input_jurisdiction_a_interpretation stringclasses 10 values	input_jurisdiction_b_interpretation stringclasses 10 values	input_divergence_signals stringclasses 7 values	input_case_trend stringclasses 7 values	input_review_signals stringclasses 6 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 8	source_citation stringclasses 1 value
CJ-TR-001	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	US	Appellate	2,022	Employment	substantive_law	1A	Statute requires overtime pay for employees	Jurisdiction A includes gig workers	Jurisdiction B excludes gig workers	Split emerging	Appeals rising	High court review discussed	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	incoherent	Direct split in worker classification.	split_risk	6	Synthetic
CJ-TR-002	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	UK	High Court	2,020	Consumer	substantive_law	1A	Refund required for defective goods	Both courts include digital goods	Interpretations match	No divergence	Stable	No review signals	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Interpretations consistent.	stable	0	Synthetic
CJ-TR-003	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	EU	Appellate	2,019	Competition	substantive_law	1A	Ban on price fixing	Court A includes algorithmic coordination	Court B undecided but leaning same	Low divergence	Trend aligning	No review signals	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Early alignment forming.	stable	0	Synthetic
CJ-TR-004	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	US	Federal	2,018	Criminal	substantive_law	1A	Enhancement for firearm use	Court A includes imitation guns	Court B excludes imitation guns	Clear divergence	Appeals increasing	Cert petition filed	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	incoherent	Conflicting scope across jurisdictions.	cert_risk	8	Synthetic
CJ-TR-005	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	UK	Court of Appeal	2,021	Property	substantive_law	1A	Written consent for assignment	Courts accept email as written	Interpretations consistent	null	Stable	No review signals	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Uniform reading across courts.	stable	0	Synthetic
CJ-TR-006	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	EU	Trial	2,022	Digital	substantive_law	1A	Data retention rule	Member State A broad scope	Member State B narrow scope	Divergence widening	Referrals pending	Commission monitoring	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	incoherent	Different scope interpretations.	harmonization_risk	7	Synthetic
CJ-TR-007	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	US	State	2,020	Tax	substantive_law	1A	Sales tax on digital goods	States align on inclusion	Consistent interpretation	null	Stable	No review signals	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	States converging.	stable	0	Synthetic
CJ-TR-008	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	EU	Appellate	2,023	AI Regulation	substantive_law	1A	Liability for automated decisions	Court A broad liability	Court B limited liability	Divergence forming	Appeals likely	High court referral discussed	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	incoherent	Divergent liability scope.	doctrinal_shift_risk	5	Synthetic
CJ-TR-009	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	UK	High Court	2,017	Employment	substantive_law	1A	Holiday pay calculation	Courts apply same formula	Consistent outcomes	null	Stable	No review signals	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Uniform interpretation.	stable	0	Synthetic
CJ-TR-010	legal-statutory-cross-jurisdiction-coherence-drift-v0.1	US	Federal	2,021	Immigration	substantive_law	1A	Detention authority rule	Circuit A broad power	Circuit B limited power	Circuit split	Supreme review likely	Petitions filed	Do interpretations remain aligned. Answer coherent or incoherent.	incoherent	Clear circuit split.	cert_risk	6	Synthetic

What this dataset is

You receive

same statutory text two jurisdiction interpretations divergence signals trend signals

You decide

Do interpretations remain aligned

Answer

coherent or incoherent

Why this matters

Before high court review interpretations drift splits form certainty collapses

This dataset detects cross-jurisdiction statutory drift early.

Downloads last month: 8

Number of rows:

Total file size:

11.6 kB