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 Government · 1efd24fe

Assessment

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.

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.

• “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

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)