{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.264Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-25", "slug": "state-v-loomis", "titleZh": "威斯康星州诉 Loomis 风险评分案", "formalName": "State v. Loomis", "aliases": [ "COMPAS case", "Loomis algorithm sentencing" ], "summary": "被告挑战量刑时使用专有 COMPAS 风险评估。威斯康星州最高法院允许有限使用，但要求附带警示，且不得把评分作为决定监禁与否或刑期长短的决定性因素。", "professionalSummary": "2016 WI 68 处理正当程序、商业秘密与风险工具准确性；裁判以一系列使用限制维持量刑，而非认可 COMPAS 的普遍有效性。", "whyItMatters": "这是刑事司法算法透明度、程序公平和人类决策责任讨论中引用最广的判例之一。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "automated-decision-making", "secondaryTopics": [ "public-law-human-rights", "discrimination" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision", "judicial-professional-use" ], "jurisdiction": "美国·威斯康星州最高法院", "industries": [ "刑事司法", "风险评估" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 29, "impactScope": 23, "institutionalLevel": 20, "crossBorder": 4, "sustainedCoverage": 15, "total": 91 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": true, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-25:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-25", "formalName": "State v. Loomis", "identifier": "2015AP157-CR", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "2015AP157-CR", "neutralCitation": "2016 WI 68" }, "forum": "Supreme Court of Wisconsin", "jurisdiction": "美国·威斯康星州最高法院", "type": "judicial-review", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2016-07-13", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "officialUrl": "https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171690" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-25:event-1", "matterId": "matter-25", "proceedingId": "matter-25:proceeding-1", "date": "2016-07-13", "type": "judgment", "title": "州最高法院维持量刑并设置使用警示", "summary": "威斯康星州最高法院允许在附带警示和限制条件下参考 COMPAS，但禁止以其决定监禁或刑期严重程度。", "documentIds": [ "matter-25:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-25:claim-1", "matter-25:claim-procedure", "matter-25:claim-event" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-25:document-1", "familyId": "matter-25:family-1", "matterId": "matter-25", "eventId": "matter-25:event-1", "title": "State v. Loomis — 2016 WI 68", "originalTitle": "State v. Loomis — 2016 WI 68", "url": "https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=171690", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "wisconsin-courts", "publishedAt": "2016-07-13", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "2015AP157-CR", "neutralCitation": "2016 WI 68" }, "language": "en" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-25:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-25", "eventId": "matter-25:event-1", "text": "威斯康星州最高法院允许在附带警示和限制条件下参考 COMPAS，但禁止以其决定监禁或刑期严重程度。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-25:document-1" ], "asOf": "2016-07-13" }, { "id": "matter-25:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-25", "eventId": "matter-25:event-1", "text": "2015AP157-CR 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 Supreme Court of Wisconsin 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-25:document-1" ], "asOf": "2016-07-13" }, { "id": "matter-25:claim-event", "matterId": "matter-25", "eventId": "matter-25:event-1", "text": "2016-07-13，案卷记录“州最高法院维持量刑并设置使用警示”这一程序节点；该日期与事件由所引直接材料支持。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-25:document-1" ], "asOf": "2016-07-13" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "Loomis 在刑事量刑中受到 COMPAS 专有风险评分影响后提出正当程序挑战，争议集中在被告无法审查商业秘密算法、工具准确性及评分应在量刑中扮演何种角色。威斯康星州最高法院在 2016 WI 68 中维持量刑，但为 COMPAS 的使用设置明确警示和限制。", "partiesZh": [ "被告兼上诉人：Loomis", "被上诉方：威斯康星州" ], "aiSystemZh": "专有 COMPAS 刑事再犯风险评估工具", "challengedConductZh": "量刑法院参考无法由被告完整审查的 COMPAS 风险评分。", "allegedHarmZh": "Loomis 主张评分的不透明性及其在量刑中的使用侵犯正当程序。", "proceduralOriginZh": "Loomis 对量刑提出司法审查；威斯康星州最高法院于 2016 年 7 月 13 日作出 2016 WI 68。", "claimIds": [ "matter-25:claim-1", "matter-25:claim-procedure", "matter-25:claim-event" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-25:document-1" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity", "matterId": "matter-25", "titleZh": "专有算法不透明与正当程序", "questionZh": "被告无法检查 COMPAS 的专有算法，是否使量刑中的评分使用违反正当程序？", "contextZh": "商业秘密限制了被告对评分生成方式的审查，法院因此把允许使用与强制警示结合。", "topic": "public-law-human-rights", "status": "partly-resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院没有因专有性而全面禁止 COMPAS，但要求量刑记录附带关于工具局限和不可决定性使用的警示。", "claimIds": [ "matter-25:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity:position-1", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity", "sideZh": "Loomis", "positionZh": "主张无法审查专有评分方法削弱其质疑量刑依据的能力。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity:position-2", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity", "sideZh": "威斯康星州", "positionZh": "支持维持量刑；现有底库未收录其对商业秘密与程序保障平衡的完整论证。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role", "matterId": "matter-25", "titleZh": "风险评分在量刑中的允许用途", "questionZh": "COMPAS 可以为量刑提供何种信息，又不得决定哪些核心事项？", "contextZh": "争点不是工具能否出现于记录，而是人类法官能否把它作为监禁或刑期严重程度的决定性依据。", "topic": "automated-decision-making", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院允许在附带警示下有限参考 COMPAS，但禁止以评分决定是否监禁或刑期长短。", "claimIds": [ "matter-25:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role:position-1", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role", "sideZh": "Loomis", "positionZh": "反对把专有风险评分用于影响其量刑结果。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role:position-2", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role", "sideZh": "法院确立的限制", "positionZh": "评分只能作为受限制的参考，不能替代法官对监禁和刑期的判断。", "claimIds": [ "matter-25:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-25:document-1" ] } ] }, { "id": "matter-25:issue-accuracy-bias", "matterId": "matter-25", "titleZh": "风险工具准确性与偏差警示", "questionZh": "COMPAS 的准确性与潜在偏差应如何影响法院对评分的信赖程度？", "contextZh": "裁判维持量刑不等于确认 COMPAS 普遍准确，反而以警示方式限制其证明力。", "topic": "discrimination", "status": "open", "claimIds": [], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-25:issue-accuracy-bias:position-1", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-accuracy-bias", "sideZh": "Loomis", "positionZh": "质疑风险工具准确性及无法充分检验其评分的公平性。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-25:issue-accuracy-bias:position-2", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-accuracy-bias", "sideZh": "法院", "positionZh": "以限制用途和附带警示控制风险，而非作出工具普遍可靠的认定。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-25:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-25", "proceedingId": "matter-25:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-25:event-1", "date": "2016-07-13", "outcomeZh": "威斯康星州最高法院维持 Loomis 的量刑，同时规定 COMPAS 只能在明确警示和用途限制下被参考。", "holdingsZh": [ "COMPAS 的专有性质不使其在任何量刑使用中当然违反正当程序。", "评分不得决定是否监禁。", "评分不得决定刑期长短或严重程度，使用时必须提示工具局限。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "法院通过限制评分功能和要求警示，在量刑信息使用与被告程序权利之间作出平衡。", "维持量刑并不等于认可 COMPAS 的普遍准确性或允许法官把决定委托给算法。" ], "reliefZh": "法院维持原量刑，没有因 COMPAS 争议撤销量刑或给予重新量刑；救济体现为对未来使用方式设置警示和限制。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "规则约束威斯康星州量刑中对 COMPAS 的使用，不构成对所有司法算法或 COMPAS 普遍有效性的认可。", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "appealStatusZh": "威斯康星州最高法院于 2016 年 7 月 13 日作出州最高法院判决；底库未记录后续改判，裁判在该州标注为有约束力。", "documentIds": [ "matter-25:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-25:claim-1" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-25-matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity-knowledge-technological-due-process", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity", "documentId": "knowledge-technological-due-process", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为通知、说明理由、申辩、人工复核和系统纠错等自动化决定程序保障提供基础框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-25-matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-25-matter-25:issue-sentencing-role-knowledge-technological-due-process", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role", "documentId": "knowledge-technological-due-process", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为通知、说明理由、申辩、人工复核和系统纠错等自动化决定程序保障提供基础框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-25-matter-25:issue-sentencing-role-knowledge-big-data-disparate-impact", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role", "documentId": "knowledge-big-data-disparate-impact", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "解释没有主观歧视意图的模型为何仍可能复制结构性差异，以及现有差别影响 doctrine 的适用困难。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-25-matter-25:issue-sentencing-role-news-context-existing-consumer-protections", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role", "documentId": "news-context-existing-consumer-protections", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供住房、就业、金融、保险和信息环境中现有保护规则与潜在缺口的跨领域地图。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-25-matter-25:issue-accuracy-bias-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-accuracy-bias", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-25-matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity-knowledge-technological-due-process", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity", "documentId": "knowledge-technological-due-process", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为通知、说明理由、申辩、人工复核和系统纠错等自动化决定程序保障提供基础框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-technological-due-process", "familyId": "knowledge-family-technological-due-process", "title": "技术性正当程序", "originalTitle": "Technological Due Process", "url": "https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol85/iss6/2/", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "washington-university-law-review", "publishedAt": "2008", "author": "Danielle Keats Citron", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "指出自动化行政决定把规则制定和个案裁判混合，却可能同时绕开两类程序保障；提出围绕透明、质量控制、申辩机会和可纠错性的技术性正当程序。", "venue": "Washington University Law Review 85: 1249–1313", "publisher": "Washington University Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "repository-record", "value": "wustl-law-review:85:6:2" }, "legalTopics": [ "public-law-human-rights", "automated-decision-making" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-25-matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-proprietary-opacity", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "familyId": "news-family-risk-model-proxy-bias", "title": "风险模型的‘厨房水槽’方法如何隐藏偏差", "originalTitle": "How Bias Hides in ‘Kitchen Sink’ Approaches to Data", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/how-bias-hides-kitchen-sink-approaches-data", "kind": "factual-report", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2024-05-30", "author": "Andrew Myers", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "机构报道介绍风险评分中的标签偏差：模型可能高度准确地预测代理指标，却没有测量真正关心的再犯、公共安全或医疗需要，并以刑事司法风险评估为例说明后果。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "文章把风险评分的技术准确性与被预测目标是否恰当分开，适合解释刑事司法和公共管理中的验证义务；它不证明某一具体工具必然存在同样偏差。", "legalTopics": [ "automated-decision-making", "discrimination", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-25-matter-25:issue-sentencing-role-knowledge-technological-due-process", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role", "documentId": "knowledge-technological-due-process", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为通知、说明理由、申辩、人工复核和系统纠错等自动化决定程序保障提供基础框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-technological-due-process", "familyId": "knowledge-family-technological-due-process", "title": "技术性正当程序", "originalTitle": "Technological Due Process", "url": "https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol85/iss6/2/", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "washington-university-law-review", "publishedAt": "2008", "author": "Danielle Keats Citron", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "指出自动化行政决定把规则制定和个案裁判混合，却可能同时绕开两类程序保障；提出围绕透明、质量控制、申辩机会和可纠错性的技术性正当程序。", "venue": "Washington University Law Review 85: 1249–1313", "publisher": "Washington University Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "repository-record", "value": "wustl-law-review:85:6:2" }, "legalTopics": [ "public-law-human-rights", "automated-decision-making" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-25-matter-25:issue-sentencing-role-knowledge-big-data-disparate-impact", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role", "documentId": "knowledge-big-data-disparate-impact", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "解释没有主观歧视意图的模型为何仍可能复制结构性差异，以及现有差别影响 doctrine 的适用困难。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-big-data-disparate-impact", "familyId": "knowledge-family-big-data-disparate-impact", "title": "大数据的差别影响", "originalTitle": "Big Data’s Disparate Impact", "url": "https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "california-law-review", "publishedAt": "2016-06", "author": "Solon Barocas; Andrew D. Selbst", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.15779/Z38BG31" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "说明数据挖掘即使没有歧视意图，也可能从历史数据、代理变量和既有排斥结构中产生差别影响，并检验传统反歧视法能否识别和救济这些机制。", "venue": "California Law Review 104(3): 671–732", "publisher": "California Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.15779/Z38BG31" }, "legalTopics": [ "discrimination", "automated-decision-making" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "automated-decision" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-25-matter-25:issue-sentencing-role-news-context-existing-consumer-protections", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-sentencing-role", "documentId": "news-context-existing-consumer-protections", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供住房、就业、金融、保险和信息环境中现有保护规则与潜在缺口的跨领域地图。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-existing-consumer-protections", "familyId": "news-family-existing-consumer-protections", "title": "现有消费者保护足以应对 AI 吗？", "originalTitle": "Are Existing Consumer Protections Enough for AI?", "url": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/are-existing-consumer-protections-enough-for-ai", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "lawfare", "publishedAt": "2025-09-03", "author": "J. Scott Babwah Brennen; Kevin Frazier; Anna Vinals Musquera", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章按住房、就业、金融、保险和信息环境盘点传统消费者保护、反歧视和竞争规则如何覆盖 AI 风险，并标出仍待检验的执法缺口。", "venue": "Lawfare", "publisher": "Lawfare Institute", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "这是一份保护框架地图，而非“现有法律已经足够”的结论。它有助于解释同一自动化行为为什么可能同时涉及消费者保护、差别影响和算法定价。", "legalTopics": [ "consumer-protection", "competition", "discrimination", "automated-decision-making" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision", "training-data", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-25-matter-25:issue-accuracy-bias-news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "matterId": "matter-25", "issueId": "matter-25:issue-accuracy-bias", "documentId": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为风险评分是否真正测量目标、代理变量如何引入标签偏差及部署机构为何需要验证提供技术报道背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-risk-model-proxy-bias", "familyId": "news-family-risk-model-proxy-bias", "title": "风险模型的‘厨房水槽’方法如何隐藏偏差", "originalTitle": "How Bias Hides in ‘Kitchen Sink’ Approaches to Data", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/how-bias-hides-kitchen-sink-approaches-data", "kind": "factual-report", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2024-05-30", "author": "Andrew Myers", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "机构报道介绍风险评分中的标签偏差：模型可能高度准确地预测代理指标，却没有测量真正关心的再犯、公共安全或医疗需要，并以刑事司法风险评估为例说明后果。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "文章把风险评分的技术准确性与被预测目标是否恰当分开，适合解释刑事司法和公共管理中的验证义务；它不证明某一具体工具必然存在同样偏差。", "legalTopics": [ "automated-decision-making", "discrimination", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "id": "wisconsin-courts", "slug": "wisconsin-courts", "name": "Wisconsin Court System", "homepage": "https://www.wicourts.gov/", "type": "court", "grade": "A", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 98 }, "rationale": "法院、政府或监管机构自有发布渠道；程序状态以其正式文书与登记信息为准。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-15" }, { "id": "washington-university-law-review", "slug": "washington-university-law-review", "name": "Washington University Law Review", "homepage": "https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "学生编辑法学评论，学校仓储提供稳定卷期、作者、摘要和全文定位。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 24, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 17, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 87 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "stanford-hai", "slug": "stanford-hai", "name": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "homepage": "https://hai.stanford.edu/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "mixed", "rationale": "大学研究机构发布研究、政策简报与新闻；按具体作者和文类区分一手研究与机构评论。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 90 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } }, { "id": "california-law-review", "slug": "california-law-review", "name": "California Law Review", "homepage": "https://www.californialawreview.org/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "学生编辑法学评论，文章具有作者、卷期、页码和稳定 DOI；观点不作为案件事实。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 18, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 90 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "lawfare", "slug": "lawfare", "name": "Lawfare", "homepage": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/", "type": "newsroom", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "作者和编辑准则公开，长期提供国家安全、平台治理和科技法分析；具体案件结论仍回溯官方材料。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 19, "historicalAccuracy": 13, "total": 92 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/state-v-loomis" }