Similar Cases

Multi-factor similarity search using provision overlap, semantic similarity, and outcome alignment.

Select Source Case
Source Case: Expert Witness—Chair of Standards and Safety Committee

Case Number: 19-3

Year: 2019

Found 10 Similar Cases

Ranked by weighted similarity score
Matching Methods:
Cosine Semantic embedding similarity Jaccard Set intersection / union Categorical Exact match scoring
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
67%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
74%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
27%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: III.4.a III.4.b III.5

Topics: Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Stalemate vs None

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
46%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
74%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
25%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
71%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: III.4.a III.4.b III.5

Topics: Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Both Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
55%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
76%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
27%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: III.4.a III.4.b III.5

Topics: Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Stalemate vs Oscillation

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
64%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
66%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
27%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
33%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.1.a III.1.a III.5

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Stalemate vs Oscillation

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
50%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
68%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
15%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
71%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.1.a III.5

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Professional Reports, Statements, Testimony

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Both Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
53%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
76%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
44%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
44%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.1.a II.4.d III.1.a +1

Topics: Conflict of Interest

Outcome: None vs Mixed

Pattern: Stalemate vs Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
62%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
70%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
20%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.1.a III.1.a

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Stalemate vs Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
57%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
54%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
22%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
57%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: III.1.a III.5

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Professional Reports, Statements, Testimony Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Stalemate vs Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
49%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
72%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
17%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.4.d III.5

Topics: Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Ethical

Pattern: Both Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
46%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
65%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
42%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
62%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.4.d III.1.a III.4.a +2

Topics: Conflict of Interest

Outcome: None vs Mixed

Pattern: Both Stalemate