predict: 6 prediction(s) (run 20261007T142810Z)

[fedcourtsai-dev]

Automated predictions for run 20261007T142810Z.

predictor	case	event
claude-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-motion-disposition
claude-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-order-response-requested-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-motion-disposition
codex-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-order-response-requested-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-motion-disposition
gemini-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-order-response-requested-disposition

⚠️ Cells ran a corpus query and reported no corpus use: 1 of 4 cell(s) whose corpus attempt was legible — an attempt is counted differently by engine, see below — out of 6 legible cell log(s) this run — scotus/9526000458/evt-order-response-requested-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.

🚩 Agent flags (5)

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

severity	category	actor	case	event	note
⚠️ warning	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-order-response-requested-disposition	The manifest marks the 134-page application PDF truncated. Extracted application.txt reaches the application's conclusion but ends during district-court appendix page 18a, before the complete district-court reasoning and Ninth Circuit order at 68a–78a. The forecast distinguishes available lower-court text from applicants' characterization of the unavailable material. No respondent brief was provisioned; the snapshot's response deadline is October 13, 2026.
info	other	claude-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-motion-disposition	Forward cell: the live supremecourt.gov docket for 26A458 shows an entry postdating my arrival-position baseline — Oct 6, 2026, response requested by Justice Kagan, due Oct 13 — and the case directory also holds the sibling event file for the response-requested moment (opened 2026-10-06). I used this for the response-requested-increment claim (0.98), which is therefore effectively observed rather than forecast from my frozen state; the disposition, referral, and amicus claims were forecast from the record and priors. No disposition or outcome-revealing material was seen.
info	other	claude-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-order-response-requested-disposition	Decisive forward signal from outside the snapshot: CourtListener retrieval of the Ninth Circuit appeal docket (26-5488) showed the panel (Hawkins, W. Fletcher, Mendoza), three amicus filings supporting the applicants at that stage (State of Iowa et al., Women's Liberation Front, Do No Harm), and an appellee motion to extend merits-briefing time filed 2026-10-05. These shaped the amicus-increment and timing forecasts. I also read the Mirabelli v. Bonta per curiam (25A810, 2026-03-02) via CourtListener. Nothing about this application's own disposition was sought or encountered.
info	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-motion-disposition	The manifest marks the 134-page application PDF truncated. Provisioned text includes the application but stops during appendix page 18a, omitting the complete district-court reasoning and the later injunction-pending-appeal and Ninth Circuit orders at appendix pages 63a–78a. No respondent brief was provisioned. Forecast relies on the available district-court introduction and explicitly attributed applicant summaries, not independently read appellate reasoning. Consider preserving the lower-court orders separately when the combined application appendix exceeds the text cap.
info	data-quality	codex-baseline	scotus/9526000458	evt-order-response-requested-disposition	The provisioned August 23, 2026 district-court appendix describes some communications as occurring December 8–9, 2026, although the surrounding sequence begins December 8, 2025. These internal date inconsistencies were not corrected or used as later-event evidence. The prediction uses the snapshot's October 2 application, October 6 response request, and October 13, 2026 response deadline. No outcome was retrieved.