Datasets:

ClarusC64
/

legal-statutory-interpretation-drift-pressure-v0.1

uid stringclasses 10 values	dataset_id stringclasses 1 value	jurisdiction stringclasses 3 values	court_level stringclasses 6 values	year int64 2.02k 2.02k	area_of_law stringclasses 9 values	pillar stringclasses 1 value	series stringclasses 1 value	input_statutory_text stringclasses 10 values	input_claimed_intent stringclasses 10 values	input_interpretation_move stringclasses 10 values	input_context_signals stringclasses 10 values	input_legislative_history stringclasses 10 values	input_judicial_comment stringclasses 9 values	question stringclasses 1 value	ground_truth_label stringclasses 2 values	ground_truth_rationale stringclasses 10 values	outcome_signal stringclasses 5 values	early_window_months int64 0 9	source_citation stringclasses 1 value
ST-TR-001	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	UK	High Court	2,021	Consumer	substantive_law	1A	Statute requires written notice before fee	Protect consumers from hidden fees	Court reads written as including electronic notice	Electronic notice widely accepted	Committee notes reference modern methods	Court says purpose supports inclusion	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Text and intent both support modern notice methods.	stable	0	Synthetic
ST-TR-002	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	UK	High Court	2,020	Tax	substantive_law	1A	Relief applies to manufacturing plant	Encourage industrial investment	Court extends to digital assets with no physical plant	Digital economy cited	No history covering digital assets	Judge notes strained extension	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	incoherent	Extension conflicts with clear physical plant language.	challenge_risk	8	Synthetic
ST-TR-003	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	US	Federal	2,019	Employment	substantive_law	1A	Overtime applies to hourly workers	Protect wage earners	Court applies to gig workers based on control factors	Work patterns similar to employment	Legislative debates broad	Court aligns with protective purpose	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Intent and evolving context support reading.	stable	0	Synthetic
ST-TR-004	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	EU	Appellate	2,018	Competition	substantive_law	1A	Ban on price fixing agreements	Prevent cartel harm	Court includes algorithmic pricing coordination	Digital coordination evident	History silent on algorithms	Court applies purpose-based reasoning	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Purpose fits new coordination forms.	stable	0	Synthetic
ST-TR-005	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	UK	High Court	2,022	Immigration	substantive_law	1A	Appeal allowed within 14 days	Ensure prompt resolution	Court extends deadline to 30 days for fairness	Hardship cited	History sets strict limit	Judge acknowledges departure	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	incoherent	Clear time limit overridden by policy concerns.	appeal_risk	6	Synthetic
ST-TR-006	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	US	Federal	2,017	Environment	substantive_law	1A	Permit required for discharge into waters	Protect water quality	Court includes indirect discharge via pipeline	Environmental harm shown	History supports broad protection	Court aligns with purpose	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Text and intent both support inclusion.	stable	0	Synthetic
ST-TR-007	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	EU	Trial	2,023	AI Regulation	substantive_law	1A	Regulation covers automated decision systems	Ensure fairness	Court excludes semi-automated tools	Literal reading adopted	Intent suggests broad oversight	Court narrows scope	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	incoherent	Narrow reading conflicts with broader intent.	reform_risk	9	Synthetic
ST-TR-008	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	UK	Court of Appeal	2,016	Property	substantive_law	1A	Lease requires written consent	Protect landlord control	Email consent accepted	Modern practice accepted	History neutral	Court sees no conflict	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Modern communication fits text and purpose.	stable	0	Synthetic
ST-TR-009	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	US	State Court	2,018	Criminal	substantive_law	1A	Weapon enhancement applies to firearms	Deter firearm use	Court applies to imitation gun	Public fear cited	History specific to firearms	Judge notes stretch	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	incoherent	Extension conflicts with firearm-specific text.	reversal_risk	7	Synthetic
ST-TR-010	legal-statutory-text-intent-coherence-decay-v0.1	EU	Appellate	2,021	Consumer	substantive_law	1A	Refund required for defective goods	Protect consumers	Court includes digital downloads	Digital goods common	History supports protection	Court aligns with purpose	Is interpretation coherent with text and intent. Answer coherent or incoherent.	coherent	Purpose supports inclusion of digital goods.	stable	0	Synthetic

What this dataset is

You receive

statutory text claimed intent interpretation move context signals legislative history

You decide

Does interpretation stay inside text and intent

Answer

coherent or incoherent

Why this matters

When text and intent diverge courts split appeals rise amendment pressure builds

This dataset measures statutory coherence decay before doctrinal fracture.

Do full repo ClarusC64/legal-statutory-age-obsolesce

Downloads last month: 19

Number of rows:

Total file size:

12.9 kB