# kaal:claim:5541658-038

**Claim.** A Dutch court's AI system for traffic violation appeals improved consistency yet altered legal experts' decisions, which shows that consistency gains from judicial AI can come at the cost of influencing expert judgment and therefore require human oversight.

**Type.** empirical  **Support.** evidenced

**Holds when.**

- a Dutch court
- traffic violation appeals
- high volume standardized decisions

**Source quote.**

> For example, a study of an AI system for traffic violation appeals in a Dutch court found that while AI improved consistency, it altered legal experts' decisions, highlighting the need for human oversight.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, *The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law* (2025), Judicial Decision-Making Tools, page 13

**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.** decision displacement by AI advice  (family: human-judgment-displacement)

**Topics.** ai-and-agents, empirical-evidence

**Keywords.** judicial-ai, consistency, human-oversight, empirical-studies

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