uid,dataset_id,jurisdiction,court_level,year,area_of_law,pillar,series,input_expert_credentials,input_opinion_scope,input_method_basis,input_validation_status,input_overreach_signals,input_daubert_or_equivalent_signals,question,ground_truth_label,ground_truth_rationale,outcome_signal,early_window_months,source_citation
EX-TR-001,legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1,US,Federal,2021,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,2020,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,2022,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,2021,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,2022,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,2019,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,2018,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"
EX-TR-008,legal-expert-qualification-opinion-coherence-v0.1,UK,Crown Court,2020,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,2021,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,2023,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"