predict: 24 prediction(s) (run 20261003T200236Z)

[fedcourtsai-dev]

Automated predictions for run 20261003T200236Z.

predictor	case	event
claude-baseline	scotus/73281680	evt-petition-disposition
claude-baseline	scotus/73500226	evt-petition-disposition
claude-baseline	scotus/73500234	evt-petition-disposition
claude-baseline	scotus/73500246	evt-petition-disposition
claude-baseline	scotus/73500268	evt-petition-disposition
claude-baseline	scotus/73521973	evt-petition-disposition
claude-baseline	scotus/73527306	evt-petition-disposition
claude-baseline	scotus/73529868	evt-petition-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/73281680	evt-petition-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/73500226	evt-petition-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/73500234	evt-petition-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/73500246	evt-petition-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/73500268	evt-petition-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/73521973	evt-petition-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/73527306	evt-petition-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/73529868	evt-petition-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/73281680	evt-petition-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/73500226	evt-petition-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/73500234	evt-petition-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/73500246	evt-petition-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/73500268	evt-petition-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/73521973	evt-petition-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/73527306	evt-petition-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/73529868	evt-petition-disposition

⚠️ Cells ran a corpus query and reported no corpus use: 3 of 13 cell(s) whose corpus attempt was legible — an attempt is counted differently by engine, see below — out of 24 legible cell log(s) this run — scotus/73500268/evt-petition-disposition/gemini-baseline, scotus/73527306/evt-petition-disposition/gemini-baseline, scotus/73529868/evt-petition-disposition/gemini-baseline (walk order, not severity). A disagreement between two channels, not a diagnosis. The attempt is harness-captured (a row a command could have run from — a shell call, or one lifted out of a code-mode program); the service is the cell's own tooling.json. Three things leave this shape and the rows tell none of them apart: a query that failed or timed out against the corpus index (the reason the count is worth printing), a cell that queried, got rows, and answered the field on some other reading, and a mis-parse on either side. On a code-mode cell there is a fourth, because its attempt is not an execution: its commands are read out of the program's own source, so a call site in a branch the program never took counts as an attempt. Read the named cells' tooling.json notes before concluding anything about their priors. Not comparable across engines — a shell row is an execution, a lifted row a source-text site — nor across runs whenever capture itself has moved between them; and a drift in the code-mode builtin idiom would empty these counts for such cells with nothing here to show it.

📄 Cells reached outside the provisioned document set for a court filing: 4 of 24 legible cell log(s) this run carry 10 such call(s) — claude-baseline 2/8 cell(s), codex-baseline 2/8 cell(s), gemini-baseline 0/8 cell(s) (actor order, not a ranking): scotus/73281680/evt-petition-disposition/claude-baseline, scotus/73500226/evt-petition-disposition/claude-baseline, scotus/73500226/evt-petition-disposition/codex-baseline, scotus/73529868/evt-petition-disposition/codex-baseline (walk order, so the cap shows a prefix — a wider run's remainder is countable here but not nameable). A comparability record, not a finding. Retrieval is not fenced: a forward cell may retrieve without restriction, and a predictor that recovers a brief the pipeline failed to provision is doing the work well. What moves is the guaranteed-common input — where one cell of a fan-out went outside a short document set and another did not, their judgments were formed over different information and the comparison between them is not clean, on either seam: a predict fan-out's numbers and an evaluate fan-out's grades are read the same way here. Read the named cells' flags.json, which is where an agent that noticed a gap says so. A reach, not an acquisition: the row is the call, and whether anything came back is result_status's business — on a shell row the engine's own failure marker rather than a read of the payload — so a refused fetch counts here and moved no information set. Nor does it say the record was actually short: a cell that re-fetched a filing it had been given counts the same, because the manifest that would separate them is thrown away with the runner. A floor besides, and an engine-shaped one: a filing URL past a row's 500-character query cut is unseen, a hosted web search carrying a bare URL is not counted, and a fetch tool called with a prompt beside its URL keeps the prompt in its query slice, so its whole channel leaves nothing to match. An engine that reaches through its shell is legible where one reaching through a prompted fetch tool is not — so read an absent or low actor as no reach was legible, never as none happened, and do not read the split as a behavioural difference between engines. Nothing scores or stratifies on any of it.

🚩 Agent flags (21)

Structured notes surfaced against this run's cells, for triage — the agents' own, plus any the harness raised.

severity	category	actor	case	event	note
info	data-quality	claude-baseline	scotus/73281680	evt-petition-disposition	No record/documents/ directory was provisioned: no petition, questions-presented, or brief-in-opposition text. The petition is a paper filing (Rule 34.6 instruction on the docket) with no PDF on supremecourt.gov, and the Sept. 8, 2026 BIO entry carries no document link, so the pipeline had nothing to fetch. The forecast rests on the Eighth Circuit opinion (CourtListener) and the docket; the SG's arguments are inferred, not read.
info	data-quality	claude-baseline	scotus/73281680	evt-petition-disposition	Caption/counsel ambiguity: the snapshot and the live docket list the petitioner (Abrahim Mohamed Fofana) as his own counsel of record, but at a Minneapolis immigration law firm's address, and the SG's extension letter says 'counsel for petitioner' did not oppose. The salience caption class (private) is unaffected; the advocacy-quality read is uncertain.
info	other	claude-baseline	scotus/73281680	evt-petition-disposition	Forward-mode disclosure: public, pre-snapshot information about related matters was material to the number: cert was denied in Shaiban v. Jaddou, No. 24-183 (Jan. 2025) on the same clause (ii)/section 1159(b) question after a hold for Bouarfa, and the Tenth Circuit vacated its contrary Mukantagara opinion in July 2026 after Mullin v. Doe. Nothing about this petition's own disposition was sought or seen; its first conference is Oct. 9, 2026.
info	other	claude-baseline	scotus/73500226	evt-petition-disposition	Decisive forward signal from companion dockets: the federal respondents' brief (Aug. 28, 2026) and the Authority's response ask the Court to grant Nos. 26-199 and 26-201 (FTC and Authority petitions from the Fifth Circuit's June 11, 2026 decision) and HOLD this petition; petitioners' reply asks for grant and consolidation. The Sept. 21 'Rescheduled' entry aligns this petition with that cluster (cross-petitions 26-332/26-335 have responses due Oct. 13-14). The forecast weights a hold-then-GVR path heavily; a hold means this event may stay open until mid-2027.
info	data-quality	claude-baseline	scotus/73500226	evt-petition-disposition	documents.json lists only the petition and QP; the two Aug. 28 responses (federal respondents, Authority) and the Sept. 15 reply were on the docket with supremecourt.gov links but were not provisioned. Retrieved them manually (forward mode).
info	data-quality	claude-baseline	scotus/73500246	evt-petition-disposition	No record/documents/ directory was provisioned for this fully briefed paid petition (petition, BIO and reply all on the docket), so no questions-presented, petition or BIO text was available. The question presented was inferred from the Fourth Circuit opinion (CA4 24-2070, published 2025-09-02, 2-1) retrieved via CourtListener.
info	other	claude-baseline	scotus/73500246	evt-petition-disposition	Forward-mode timing signal used, disclosed for transparency: a corpus query surfaced neighbouring docket 25-1349 as granted, and its public docket shows 'Petition GRANTED' dated 2026-10-01, i.e. the long-conference (9/28/2026) grant tranche issued before this cell's 2026-10-03 snapshot. This case's own public docket, fetched 2026-10-03, carries no entry after the 8/19/2026 distribution: no grant, no denial, no relist. No disposition of this case was surfaced; the forecast conditions on 'not granted in the first tranche', which is why it sits well below the federal-band anchor.
info	other	claude-baseline	scotus/73500268	evt-petition-disposition	Decisive public forward signal predating the snapshot: the lead case this petition asked to be held for, Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction (No. 25-6), was decided June 11, 2026, unanimously vacating the Fifth Circuit and rejecting the two-factor inadvertence rule the panel applied here. Read via the CourtListener MCP; it is not this case's outcome and the forecast folds it in as ordinary forward evidence.
info	data-quality	claude-baseline	scotus/73500268	evt-petition-disposition	distribution_count is 2, but the first distribution (July 22, for the September 28 conference) was superseded by the August 7 call for a response; the September 23 distribution for October 9 is the petition's first live conference. The 'one relist' reading in the band and relist cut therefore encodes a call-for-response reschedule rather than a conference relist.
info	other	claude-baseline	scotus/73529868	evt-petition-disposition	Decisive forward signal predating the snapshot: on 2026-10-01 the Court granted the government's companion petition on the same statutory question, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104 (2d Cir.), without acting on this petition, although the Solicitor General had asked the Court to grant this one and hold Rhoney. I treat this petition as most likely held pending Rhoney, with its disposition (GVR vs. denial) tracking the merits. This is public companion-case information, not this case's outcome; the supremecourt.gov docket for 25-1415 shows no entry after 2026-09-25 as of 2026-10-03.
info	data-quality	claude-baseline	scotus/73529868	evt-petition-disposition	No record/documents/ was provisioned (no petition, BIO, reply or QP text). The docket carries a Rule 34.6 paper-only filing directive, so the filings have no supremecourt.gov PDF links for the pipeline to fetch; only the 2026-09-25 letter is linked. I read the SG's petition from justice.gov instead and did not read the BIO. Consider a fallback source (justice.gov/osg) for SG petitions on paper-only dockets.
info	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/73281680	evt-petition-disposition	No filed-document directory, petition, questions-presented text, or brief-in-opposition text was provisioned, although the snapshot records an opposition filed September 8, 2026. The pre-petition January 9 appellate opinion was retrieved through CourtListener. The forecast's proposed question is inferred from that opinion; the petition's actual framing, split assertions, and opposition arguments remain unverified. Prediction completed without retrieving this petition's disposition.
info	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/73500226	evt-petition-disposition	The provisioned documents include only the petition and questions presented, although the snapshot links both respondents' August 28, 2026 responses and the September 15 reply. Retrieved those fixed pre-decision Supreme Court PDFs successfully. They materially change the petition-only picture: the responses acknowledge a renewed enforcement split but request a hold for companion petitions, and the reply raises a competing-vehicle jurisdiction concern. Consider provisioning these response forms and replies. No target disposition or subsequent case history was retrieved; the gap did not block completion.
info	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/73500246	evt-petition-disposition	The snapshot records a petition, opposition, and reply but no filed-document text or document manifest was provisioned. Its paper-only filing instruction may explain the missing electronic links. Forecast uses the provisioned docket, prior-Term federal-band rates, and the September 2, 2025 Fourth Circuit opinion retrieved through MCP. The actual questions presented and cert-stage vehicle arguments remain unverified; the reconstructed review question is expressly labeled as such. No Supreme Court outcome was sought or encountered.
info	other	codex-baseline	scotus/73500268	evt-petition-disposition	The distinct lead case Keathley, No. 25-6, was decided June 11, 2026, before this forward snapshot. Its opinion was retrieved through CourtListener and materially raises the forecast of a GVR. The provisioned opposition already discusses that ruling. This is permissible intervening-authority context, not this petition's outcome; no target-case disposition was sought or encountered.
info	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/73500268	evt-petition-disposition	The frozen distribution count of two is retained. The September 23 distribution for October 9 was entered before the originally scheduled September 28 conference, following a requested response. The count may reflect rescheduling rather than a completed-conference relist; the forecast does not equate it with two substantive conferences.
info	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/73521973	evt-petition-disposition	Prediction completed with limited filing coverage: documents.json marks the 713-page petition as truncated, although the petition body through its conclusion is present; the appendix is incomplete. The snapshot records a September 21, 2026 reply but no reply text was provisioned. The preservation, exhaustion, and alternative-holding disputes were assessed from the petition and complete BIO without assuming the respondent's assertions were adjudicated facts. No outcome material was retrieved.
info	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/73527306	evt-petition-disposition	The provisioned manifest marks petition.txt truncated. Its main argument and conclusion are available, but the full appendix was not reviewed. The docket lists a reply without provisioned reply text, and the underlying videos were not viewed. Because the force and interlocutory-review arguments turn on competing accounts of that evidence, the forecast relies on the parties' written descriptions and is correspondingly uncertain. No target outcome was retrieved.
info	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/73529868	evt-petition-disposition	No petition, questions-presented, or opposition text was provisioned. The snapshot directs paper-only filing and most filing links are empty. The forecast uses the pre-petition Sixth Circuit opinion and the snapshot-linked September 25 respondents' letter; it does not purport to reproduce the actual QPs or assess the full briefing. The missing advocacy particularly limits confidence in vehicle selection.
info	other	codex-baseline	scotus/73529868	evt-petition-disposition	The September 25, 2026 respondents' letter materially informs the hold/GVR forecast. It discusses alternative vehicles, reports dismissal of companion Genalo v. G.M., and identifies the then-filed Genalo v. D.C. petition. This is pre-snapshot companion context in a forward cell, not this petition's disposition. No outcome of Putra v. Lopez-Campos was sought or encountered.
info	data-quality	gemini-baseline	scotus/73281680	evt-petition-disposition	The data/cases/scotus/73281680/record/documents/ directory was entirely missing, so no filed-document text (such as the petition or the brief in opposition) was provisioned. Inference was based on the docket and lower court opinions found via CourtListener.