# kaal:claim:5541658-008

**Claim.** Prediction on a test set of existing judgments is not the same task as predicting outcomes for a party mid-litigation, because the precise formulation of facts used by such models emerges only once the judgment has been issued.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- legal judgment prediction systems trained and evaluated on published judgments

**Source quote.**

> for instance, a lawyer advising a client on the probable outcome of a court hearing—does not have access to the precise formulation of facts presented in a judgment, as this formulation emerges only once the judgment has been issued.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, *The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law* (2025), A. Machine Learning Algorithms, page 15

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `e543a2d698fcd522d4d02e034cc9ee1344d0015d2c824b40b9e05ab7c0728c60` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Gray%20-%202025%20-%20The%20Evolving%20Role%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20Law.pdf

**Failure mode.** judgment leakage in outcome prediction  (family: research-design-limitation)

**Topics.** law-and-legal-systems, economics, research-methods

**Keywords.** legal-judgment-prediction, evaluation-validity, predictive-analytics, methodology

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.