Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Courts · 1efd24fe AI · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The supplied passage directly states that the judges' decisions can be captured by small, interpretable formulas. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The abstract directly reports both generally interpretable decision formulas and substantial differences among judges in some cases.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Supported.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “An arXiv study of Harris County misdemeanor bail hearings reported that magistrates' decisions were generally captured by small interpretable formulas, while...” · 2 claims · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

• The abstract directly reports both generally interpretable decision formulas and substantial differences among judges in some cases.

  From Do Judges Behave Like Algorithms? Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

• The supplied passage directly states that the judges' decisions can be captured by small, interpretable formulas.

  From Do Judges Behave Like Algorithms? Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  The excerpt directly matches the study's general-formula finding.

• The primary study reports that Harris County magistrate judges' misdemeanor bail decisions generally behaved algorithmically and could be captured by small, interpretable formulas.

  From Do Judges Behave Like Algorithms? Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  The abstract directly matches the Harris County, magistrate-judge, misdemeanor-bail, and small-formula components.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
f52bf49b		cca12873

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

3 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	92182b0e, cca12873, acfb16be

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
22297	APPENDED
22298	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
22307	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
22313	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24360	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)