# kaal:claim:5541658-029

**Claim.** The literature offers high short term accuracy figures for judicial AI but almost no evidence on how these tools affect decision quality, case backlogs, or public trust over extended periods, which is a fundamental research gap.

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

**Holds when.**

- the existing empirical literature on AI in judicial systems

**Source quote.**

> while AI tools have demonstrated high accuracy in predicting case outcomes (e.g., 96.9% in the CAIL dataset), there is little evidence on how these tools affect judicial decision-making quality, case backlogs, or public trust over extended periods.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, *The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law* (2025), Lack of Longitudinal Studies on AI’s Judicial Impact, page 31

**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.** missing longitudinal evidence  (family: research-design-limitation)

**Topics.** reputation, economics

**Keywords.** research-gaps, longitudinal-studies, public-trust, evaluation

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