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 6
values | pillar stringclasses 1
value | series stringclasses 1
value | input_expert_credentials stringclasses 9
values | input_opinion_scope stringclasses 10
values | input_method_basis stringclasses 10
values | input_validation_status stringclasses 5
values | input_overreach_signals stringclasses 6
values | input_daubert_or_equivalent_signals stringclasses 5
values | question stringclasses 2
values | ground_truth_label stringclasses 3
values | ground_truth_rationale stringclasses 10
values | outcome_signal stringclasses 4
values | early_window_months stringclasses 5
values | source_citation stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EX-TR-001 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,021 | Tort | legal_actors | 3C | Board-certified orthopaedic surgeon | Opines on fracture mechanism | Relies on imaging and clinical exam | Validated method | No overreach | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Credentials and method align with opinion scope. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-002 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,020 | Tort | legal_actors | 3C | General practitioner | Opines on complex biomechanical failure | Speculative reconstruction | Weak validation | Scope exceeds training | Daubert challenge sustained | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Opinion exceeds expertise and lacks validated method. | exclusion_risk | 2 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-003 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,022 | Commercial | legal_actors | 3C | Chartered accountant | Opines on financial loss model | Uses accepted accounting methods | Validated | Within scope | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Opinion matches credentials and method. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-004 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,021 | Commercial | legal_actors | 3C | Accountant | Opines on engineering defect | No engineering method | Invalid scope | Clear overreach | Excluded | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Expert opines outside field with no method support. | exclusion_risk | 1 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-005 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | EU | Trial | 2,022 | Competition | legal_actors | 3C | Economist | Opines on market impact | Uses accepted econometric model | Validated | Within scope | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Econometric analysis fits expertise and question. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-006 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | State | 2,019 | Criminal | legal_actors | 3C | Forensic analyst | Opines on DNA match probability | Uses validated lab protocol | Validated | No overreach | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Method and credentials align. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-007 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | State | 2,018 | Criminal | legal_actors | 3C | Forensic analyst | States absolute match certainty | Lab method has known error rate | Overstates certainty | Daubert motion | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Opinion certainty exceeds validated error margins. | appeal_risk | 3 | Synthetic | null |
EX-TR-008 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | UK | Crown Court | 2,020 | Criminal | legal_actors | 3C | Psychologist | Opines on defendant mental state | Uses standard assessment tools | Validated | Within scope | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Opinion within training and method limits. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-009 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | EU | Appellate | 2,021 | Consumer | legal_actors | 3C | Marketing consultant | Opines on consumer psychology causation | No scientific testing | Weak validation | Scope creep | Weight reduced | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Method and credentials insufficient for causal claim. | weight_reduction_risk | 4 | Synthetic |
EX-TR-010 | legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,023 | Securities | legal_actors | 3C | Financial economist | Opines on price impact | Uses accepted event study | Validated | Within scope | Admitted | Is expert opinion coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Event study aligns with credentials and opinion. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
What this dataset is
You receive
expert credentials opinion scope method basis validation status overreach signals
You decide
Does the opinion stay within the expert’s qualification and method
Answer
coherent or incoherent
Why this matters
When expert coherence fails
exclusion risk rises appeals increase verdict safety weakens
- Downloads last month
- 8