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 Crime · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The study reports substantial differences among Harris County magistrate judges, producing inconsistency and unequal treatment across similar defendants. 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 reports substantial judge-to-judge differences, inconsistent outcomes, and unequal treatment across similar defendants.

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

  The excerpt explicitly states each component of the target claim.

• The study reports substantial differences among Harris County magistrate judges, producing inconsistency and unequal treatment across similar defendants.

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

• Cross-judge evaluation found meaningfully distinct decision processes and pronounced heterogeneity across judge pairs.

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

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

• The study is jurisdiction-specific and reports over 22,000 cases decided by 21 Harris County magistrates.

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

  The target is narrowed to Harris County, Texas, and a study sample involving 21 magistrates.

• The study states that its analysis covers 2020 through 2025.

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

  The target omits the study period, which is 2020–2025.

• The processed dataset contained 22,361 usable cases after exclusions and missing-value filtering.

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

  The target omits the analyzed denominator and exclusions; the usable sample was 22,361 cases.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
f52bf49b		2a7ed6f4

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

From	Relationship	To
972ec8cc	NARROWS	e1122017

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	432b7e41, a148276b, 23d31ff1, d04589d1, 96cd6b3d, 2a7ed6f4, c8a0db8b

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
22301	APPENDED
22302	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
22309	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
22315	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
23171	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24364	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)