Datasets:
uid string | dataset_id string | jurisdiction string | court_level string | year int64 | area_of_law string | pillar string | series string | input_instruction_to_expert_summary string | input_key_facts_summary string | input_expert_opinion_summary string | input_assumptions_summary string | input_reliance_by_firm_summary string | input_red_flags string | question string | ground_truth_label string | ground_truth_rationale string | outcome_signal string | early_window_months int64 | source_citation string |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ER-TR-001 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,023 | Commercial | legal_actors | 3C | Expert asked to assess delay causation | Programme and delay events provided | Opinion ties delay to supplier failure | Assumptions match disclosed records | Firm relies for pleadings and negotiation | null | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Instructions, facts and reliance align. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ER-TR-002 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,023 | Commercial | legal_actors | 3C | Expert asked to assess delay | Key emails not provided | Opinion assumes no mitigation steps | Assumption contradicted by file | Firm relies fully in defence | Missing key documents | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Opinion based on incomplete facts. | challenge_risk | 0 | Synthetic |
ER-TR-003 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,022 | Personal Injury | legal_actors | 3C | Expert asked on medical causation | Medical records complete | Opinion within specialty and scope | Assumptions stated and supported | Firm uses for settlement and trial prep | null | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Report grounded and scoped. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ER-TR-004 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,022 | Personal Injury | legal_actors | 3C | Expert asked on prognosis | Only partial records sent | Opinion on long-term disability | Assumes future surgery without basis | Firm relies for damages schedule | Unsupported future assumption | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Assumption unsupported yet relied upon. | daubert_risk | 1 | Synthetic |
ER-TR-005 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | UK | Tribunal | 2,022 | Employment | legal_actors | 3C | Expert on earnings loss | Payroll data provided | Opinion calculates loss correctly | Assumptions match payroll | Firm uses in schedule of loss | null | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Calculation grounded in evidence. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ER-TR-006 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | UK | Tribunal | 2,022 | Employment | legal_actors | 3C | Expert on earnings loss | Payroll data incomplete | Opinion extrapolates full-time hours | Assumption not supported | Firm uses in claim value | Unsupported extrapolation | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Relies on unsupported assumption. | valuation_risk | 0 | Synthetic |
ER-TR-007 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | EU | Commercial Court | 2,021 | Commercial | legal_actors | 3C | Valuation expert instructed | Financials and forecasts provided | Opinion limited to valuation date | Assumptions disclosed | Firm relies for mediation | null | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Properly bounded opinion. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ER-TR-008 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | EU | Commercial Court | 2,021 | Commercial | legal_actors | 3C | Valuation expert instructed | Key contract omitted | Opinion assumes revenue stream secure | Assumption contradicted by contract | Firm relies in negotiations | Omitted contract risk | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Key document missing from basis. | challenge_risk | 1 | Synthetic |
ER-TR-009 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,023 | Construction | legal_actors | 3C | Quantum expert instructed | All invoices disclosed | Opinion matches disclosed sums | Assumptions tested | Firm relies in Part 36 offer | null | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Evidence-backed opinion. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
ER-TR-010 | legal-expert-report-opinion-reliance-coherence-risk-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,023 | Construction | legal_actors | 3C | Quantum expert instructed | Some invoices withheld | Opinion uses estimated totals | Assumptions unverified | Firm relies in pleadings | Incomplete disclosure | Is expert reliance coherence intact. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Relies on incomplete financial data. | credibility_risk | 0 | Synthetic |
What this dataset does
You receive
expert instructions facts provided expert opinion assumptions firm reliance
You decide
coherent or incoherent
Daily use
stop weak expert reliance
prepare for challenge
improve instructions
reduce evidential risk
- Downloads last month
- 16