Similar Cases

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

Select Source Case
Source Case: Advertising - Misstating Credentials

Case Number: 92-2

Year: 1992

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
55%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
81%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
56%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
33%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 I.5 II.5.a +2

Topics: Advertising Public Statements and Criticism Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts +1

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
52%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
77%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
30%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
20%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.5 III.1.a III.3.a

Topics: Advertising Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Self-Promotion

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
52%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
68%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
57%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 I.5 II.5.a +1

Topics: Advertising Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Self-Promotion

Outcome: None vs Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Phase Lag

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
60%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
63%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
29%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
27%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.2 I.5 II.5.a +1

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
49%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
61%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
36%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
18%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 I.5 III.1.a +1

Topics: Advertising Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts Self-Promotion

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
56%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
37%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
50%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
33%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 II.5.a III.1.a +1

Topics: Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
54%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
31%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
50%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.2 I.5 II.5.a +1

Topics: Advertising Public Statements and Criticism Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
34%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
70%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
33%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
9%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.3 I.5 III.1.a +1

Topics: Advertising Public Statements and Criticism Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts +1

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Oscillation

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
39%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
69%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
23%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.5 III.1.a III.3.a

Topics: Advertising Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
46%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
74%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
10%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
33%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: III.6

Topics: Public Statements and Criticism

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate