Similar Cases

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

Select Source Case
Source Case: Confidentiality – Discussion with Potential Bidding Contractor

Case Number: 15-7

Year: 2015

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
58%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
69%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
50%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4 II.4.a III.5 +1

Topics: Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
69%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
62%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
33%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

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

Topics: Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
39%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
67%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
71%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

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

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Conflict of Interest

Outcome: None vs Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
56%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
69%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
33%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

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

Topics: Confidential Information Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
65%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
71%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
75%
Outcome Match Categorical
0%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.4 II.4.a II.4.b +3

Topics: Conflict of Interest

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
49%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
72%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
30%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4 II.4.a III.5

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
55%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
74%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
22%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
29%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.4 II.4.a

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Confidential Information Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Cites Source 50% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
60%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
68%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
50%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4 II.4.a II.4.b +2

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Confidential Information Political Contributions, Gifts, Commissions

Outcome: None vs Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
59%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
70%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
13%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.4 III.5

Topics: Faithful Agents and Trustees Confidential Information Conflict of Interest

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
64%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
69%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
10%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
11%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: II.4.a

Outcome: Both Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate