Dataset Viewer
Auto-converted to Parquet Duplicate
uid
stringclasses
10 values
dataset_id
stringclasses
1 value
jurisdiction
stringclasses
3 values
court_level
stringclasses
5 values
year
int64
2.02k
2.02k
area_of_law
stringclasses
3 values
pillar
stringclasses
1 value
series
stringclasses
1 value
input_issue_scope
stringclasses
10 values
input_statement_paragraphs_summary
stringclasses
10 values
input_timeline_summary
stringclasses
10 values
input_exhibit_list_and_refs
stringclasses
10 values
input_internal_consistency_flags
stringclasses
6 values
input_hearsay_and_scope_flags
stringclasses
7 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
3 values
source_citation
stringclasses
1 value
WS-TR-001
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
UK
High Court
2,023
Commercial
legal_actors
3C
Issues delivery date and losses
Paras state contract signed 1 Feb. Delivery due 1 May. Delivered 15 May. Emails attached.
Timeline lists 1 Feb sign 1 May due 15 May delivered
Exhibit A contract Exhibit B email 10 May Exhibit C delivery note
No conflicts
No scope drift
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Chronology and exhibits align with no internal conflicts.
stable
0
Synthetic
WS-TR-002
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
UK
High Court
2,023
Commercial
legal_actors
3C
Delivery issue only
Paras say delivery 15 May but later say delivery 5 May
Timeline shows delivery 15 May
Exhibit C delivery note referenced but not in list
Date conflict present
No hearsay flag
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Date conflict and missing exhibit reference.
credibility_risk
1
Synthetic
WS-TR-003
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
US
Federal
2,022
Employment
legal_actors
3C
Issue retaliation sequence
Paras set complaint 3 Jan termination 20 Feb meeting 10 Feb
Timeline matches complaint meeting termination
Exhibits: A complaint email B meeting notes C termination letter
No conflicts
No scope drift
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Narrative matches timeline and exhibits.
stable
0
Synthetic
WS-TR-004
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
US
Federal
2,022
Employment
legal_actors
3C
Retaliation sequence
Paras mention meeting 10 Feb but timeline omits it
Timeline lists complaint and termination only
Exhibit B meeting notes referenced but not provided
Missing event and exhibit
Scope ok
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Key event missing from timeline and exhibit missing.
credibility_risk
1
Synthetic
WS-TR-005
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
UK
County Court
2,022
Property
legal_actors
3C
Issue damp and notice
Paras list damp noticed March repair report April follow up May
Timeline lists March April May
Exhibits: photos March repair request email April GP note
No conflicts
Hearsay framed as 'I was told' where used
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Chronology consistent and hearsay handled.
stable
0
Synthetic
WS-TR-006
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
UK
County Court
2,022
Property
legal_actors
3C
Damp and notice
Paras claim 'landlord admitted fault' without source
Timeline dates inconsistent with paras
Exhibit list lacks admission doc
Inconsistencies present
Hearsay stated as fact
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Unanchored claims with timeline and exhibit gaps.
credibility_risk
1
Synthetic
WS-TR-007
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
EU
Commercial Court
2,020
Commercial
legal_actors
3C
Issue non-payment
Paras state invoice sent 1 Feb reminders 10 Feb 1 Mar
Timeline matches
Exhibits: invoice reminders ledger
No conflicts
No scope drift
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Clean alignment between narrative and proof.
stable
0
Synthetic
WS-TR-008
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
EU
Commercial Court
2,020
Commercial
legal_actors
3C
Non-payment only
Paras include allegations of unrelated fraud
Timeline focuses invoice only
Exhibit list includes none for fraud
Scope drift flag
No hearsay framing
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Scope drift beyond issues with no support.
scope_creep_risk
1
Synthetic
WS-TR-009
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
UK
Tribunal
2,021
Employment
legal_actors
3C
Issue procedure fairness
Paras list meetings dates and outcomes
Timeline matches meetings
Exhibits: meeting invite notes appeal email
No conflicts
No scope drift
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
coherent
Consistent record with exhibits.
stable
0
Synthetic
WS-TR-010
legal-witness-statement-chronology-exhibit-internal-consistency-v0.1
UK
Tribunal
2,021
Employment
legal_actors
3C
Procedure fairness
Paras cite Exhibit D appeal email but exhibit list ends at C
Timeline has wrong date for appeal
Missing exhibit and date mismatch
No hearsay framing
Is witness statement coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent.
incoherent
Exhibit reference missing and timeline mismatch.
credibility_risk
1
Synthetic
null

What this dataset does

You receive

issue scope statement summary timeline summary exhibit list and refs consistency flags hearsay and scope flags

You decide

coherent or incoherent

Daily use

witness statement QC

chronology checks

exhibit reference checks

scope drift flag

credibility risk routing

Downloads last month
25