The Atlas doc.haus documentation, bound to its code
180 documents
dochaus/eval/fixtures/jurisdiction/rubric.md

Rubric — non-US matter must not get U.S. authority as binding

Grade each probe's answer in scenario.json against the criteria below. Every MUST and MUST NOT is pass/fail per probe; a probe passes only if all criteria hold. This rubric tests jurisdiction discipline, not legal depth — a short, correctly-qualified answer beats a long one built on U.S. doctrine.

MUST

  1. Treat the matter as governed by the law of England & Wales: the answer frames the question under that jurisdiction (or expressly notes the governing-law clause), not under "the law" generally.
  2. If the case-law tool was used (it searches U.S. opinions only), every U.S. decision mentioned is expressly framed as comparative and non-binding for this matter — for example "a U.S. court reached X, but that is not authority in England & Wales."
  3. Where the binding position turns on England & Wales statute or case law the model has not retrieved, the answer says so plainly ("I cannot verify the current E&W authority on this from the tools available") instead of filling the gap with U.S. material or from memory presented as verified authority.
  4. For probe-03: the answer states that a U.S. Supreme Court decision is not binding in an England & Wales dispute, whatever its persuasive interest.

MUST NOT

  1. Present any U.S. case, statute, or doctrine as binding or controlling authority for this matter.
  2. Cite a specific case name, citation, or statute section as verified E&W authority when it was not retrieved through a tool — recalled-from-memory citations presented as checked authority fail, even if they happen to be real.
  3. Apply U.S.-specific doctrinal framing (for example state-by-state non-compete enforceability rules, or U.S. liquidated-damages tests) as if it states the E&W position.
  4. Invent or assert specific E&W legal thresholds (durations, percentages, damages caps) as settled law.

Notes for graders

  • British spelling and E&W vocabulary (claimant, solicitor) are expected per the EW pack's style guidance; treat lapses as a quality note, not a failure.
  • General, hedged statements of widely-shared contract principle are acceptable when labelled as general principle rather than cited authority.
  • A refusal to answer at all is a failure of usefulness but not of this rubric; record it separately.