Claim

The study estimated that at least 6.5% of cases would have different outcomes under random reassignment of cases to panels.

Type QUANTITATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 22254 · qualifiers {"location":"Dataset and counterfactual analysis in the 2026 paper."}

Referenced 104 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 70, shared 33. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Courts · 1efd24fe Government · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.9734 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

3 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 2 by the author only

2 independent evidence lineages · review checks 1 of 4 · stability HIGH

Main unresolved issue: 3 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:6bb6a07d-ca22-845d-abfb-0058301804a1

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.Every quoted passage was confirmed on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The primary Journal of Law and Courts article estimates that at least 6.5% of cases would have different outcomes if all cases in its dataset were randomly reassigned to panels. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The study directly reports a minimum 6.5% counterfactual difference under random panel reassignment.

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.

Hide calculation

0.9734 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 1 of 4 · stability HIGH · 3 sources, 2 independent lineages

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:c06d69b694c4064160a0e796cd7284ebfc7c22b18cfe909168f613b307c4f8ad

Last changed at entry seq 24359; nothing logged since has borne on this claim.

How the number was reached

Each counted link is weighed by multiplying the factors the model declares; a factor it does not declare is not shown. Every factor name below links to what that number means.

Link	Working	Weight	Counted as
39026cec support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation MODEL_OUTPUT 0.0 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	0.000000	0.000000 (dependent strongest only, kept fe9d98fa)
62dea2b9 support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	1.800000
fe9d98fa support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	1.800000

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 3.600000 (the counted weights) = 3.600000 → probability 0.9734

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.9255 to 0.9908, a spread of 0.0653.

Half-even rounding, six places for weights and four for the probability. The same inputs under the same model reproduce this exactly; that is what the trace hash above is for. How a score is worked out explains every factor, why it is there, and what the model sets it to.

Your view

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

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.

“A 2026 Journal of Law and Courts study used a machine-learning method on Ninth Circuit data and estimated substantial panel-assignment effects on case...” · 2 claims · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

The study directly reports a minimum 6.5% counterfactual difference under random panel reassignment.

From Measuring How Much Judges Matter for Case Outcomes Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted
The supplied passage directly estimates that at least 6.5% of cases would differ after random reassignment to panels.

From Measuring How Much Judges Matter for Case Outcomes Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

The quoted passage exactly states the percentage and counterfactual reassignment.
The primary Journal of Law and Courts article estimates that at least 6.5% of cases would have different outcomes if all cases in its dataset were randomly reassigned to panels.

From Measuring How Much Judges Matter for Case Outcomes Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

The article directly states the 6.5% estimate and random reassignment condition.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
2da69dd9		fe9d98fa

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	39026cec, 62dea2b9, fe9d98fa

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The primary Journal of Law and Courts article estimates that at least 6.5% of cases would have different outcomes if all cases in its dataset were randomly reassigned to panels. 5ca98c3f

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. 2da69dd9

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found something; see the counted evidence. 21dfc8aa

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:6bb6a07d-ca22-845d-abfb-0058301804a1

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
22254	APPENDED
22255	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
22266	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
22277	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24358	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "6bb6a07d-ca22-845d-abfb-0058301804a1",
  "links": [
    {
      "kept": "da19a02b-c98f-8c67-a2a4-ce00fe9d98fa",
      "link": "0d6d4686-e1dc-8a1e-9310-83ce39026cec",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "a27bf1fa-3d6c-8772-87b8-45e52da69dd9",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "0.000000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "MODEL_OUTPUT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "link": "a8aa3cbb-fbcf-8315-a2ab-b04662dea2b9",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "2eadf54b-08e3-8d04-bcf1-ce755ca98c3f",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.800000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "link": "da19a02b-c98f-8c67-a2a4-ce00fe9d98fa",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "6fd3715e-cb5f-8277-8146-a7e62ea2f387",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.800000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.0653",
    "permissive": "0.9908",
    "conservative": "0.9255"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "HIGH",
  "claim_type": "QUANTITATIVE",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.9734",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "3.600000",
  "snapshot_seq": 24359,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 2,
  "model_dependent": false,
  "review_coverage": "0.25",
  "truth_evaluable": true,
  "assessment_state": "SUPPORTED",
  "review_checklist": {
    "qualifiers_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "opposing_search_done": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "independence_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "primary_source_reviewed": {
      "by": [
        "0d6d4686-e1dc-8a1e-9310-83ce39026cec",
        "a8aa3cbb-fbcf-8315-a2ab-b04662dea2b9",
        "da19a02b-c98f-8c67-a2a4-ce00fe9d98fa"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "3.600000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 3
}