Claim LD05-HQ-C05 (v1.1)

Kentucky’s mandatory risk-assessment policy changed bail practice but its effects eroded over time; separate working-paper evidence indicates that departures toward harsher conditions were more common for Black defendants.

Provenance and status

Claim type: FACT (as printed: “FACT”)
Publication status: ELIGIBLE (QUALIFIED) (as printed: “ELIGIBLE WITH QUALIFIER”)
Verification state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY (as printed: “CONTENT VERIFIED”; verified by: UNKNOWN)
Does not license: Universal claim that risk assessment worsens racial disparity
Source (field 6, as printed): Stevenson, “Assessing Risk Assessment in Action,” Minnesota Law Review 103; Albright, “If You Give a Judge a Risk Score,” 2019 working paper
Source type (field 7): PEER_REVIEWED_JOURNAL_ARTICLE, WORKING_PAPER (as printed: “Peer-reviewed law/economics article + working paper”)
Institutional position: Independent academic
Maturity (claim evidence / publication maturity): RAPIDLY_MATURING (as printed: “RAPIDLY MATURING”)
Recorded date: 2026-10-13
Currentness / correction: This is the current version. No correction or concern relation is recorded on its Sources.

Version

Pinned version v1.1 (entry LD05-HQ-C05--v1.1) — this page never floats to newer evidence.

This pinned version is also the current version.

Versions:v1.0 v1.1 · current

What changed in this version

This version supersedes LD05-HQ-C05--v1.0, which stays available unchanged.

Changed fields: 2 PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM; 25 RECORDED DATE
What changed: The public-facing claim now says that the racial-disparity result comes from working-paper evidence ("separate working-paper evidence" instead of "separate evidence"). The Kentucky erosion result and both sources are unchanged.
Why: A claim check on 13 October 2026 found that version 1.0 dropped the working-paper qualifier that the HQ cross-batch synthesis cleared for this claim ("separate working-paper evidence"); the HQ notes say the 2019 Albright paper is a working paper and must not be given the same maturity as Stevenson 2018. The check and this revision were done by AI agents against the HQ notes, not by a person.

Pinned Sources (field 6, version-specific)

“Stevenson, “Assessing Risk Assessment in Action,” Minnesota Law Review 103” → SRC-LD05-STEVENSON-MINNESOTA-LAW-REVIEW-2018--v1.0 — Stevenson, “Assessing Risk Assessment in Action,” Minnesota Law Review 103 (2018); class PEER_REVIEWED_JOURNAL_ARTICLE (explicit public provenance pin)
“Albright, “If You Give a Judge a Risk Score,” 2019 working paper” → SRC-LD05-ALBRIGHT-RISK-SCORE-2019--v1.0 — Albright, “If You Give a Judge a Risk Score: Evidence from Kentucky Bail Decisions,” Harvard John M. Olin Fellows’ Discussion Paper 85 (2019); class WORKING_PAPER (explicit public provenance pin)

Read the originals

SRC-LD05-STEVENSON-MINNESOTA-LAW-REVIEW-2018: open the original

All 25 canonical Claim fields (raw values and normalized values)

#	Canonical field	Canonical value (verbatim)	Normalized (Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2)
1	CLAIM ID	LD05-HQ-C05	—
2	PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM	Kentucky’s mandatory risk-assessment policy changed bail practice but its effects eroded over time; separate working-paper evidence indicates that departures toward harsher conditions were more common for Black defendants.	—
3	CLAIM TYPE	FACT	base_types: FACT
4	RESEARCH STRAND	B/F	—
5	MATURITY	RAPIDLY MATURING	states: RAPIDLY_MATURING
6	SOURCE	Stevenson, “Assessing Risk Assessment in Action,” Minnesota Law Review 103; Albright, “If You Give a Judge a Risk Score,” 2019 working paper	source_ids: SRC-LD05-STEVENSON-MINNESOTA-LAW-REVIEW-2018, SRC-LD05-ALBRIGHT-RISK-SCORE-2019
7	SOURCE TYPE	Peer-reviewed law/economics article + working paper	classes: PEER_REVIEWED_JOURNAL_ARTICLE, WORKING_PAPER
8	INSTITUTIONAL POSITION	Independent academic	—
9	SCOPE	Kentucky pretrial bail	—
10	DESIGN	Quasi-experimental / observational	—
11	SAMPLE / DATASET	>1 million cases in Stevenson; case-level Kentucky data in Albright	—
12	MODEL / TOOL / VERSION	Kentucky pretrial risk/default system	—
13	COMPARATOR	Pre-policy practice / same-score defendants	—
14	MAIN RESULT	Initial practice change eroded; harsher override direction differed by race	—
15	INFERENTIAL TARGET	Durability and distribution of algorithmic constraint	—
16	DOES NOT LICENSE	Universal claim that risk assessment worsens racial disparity	—
17	VERIFICATION STATE	CONTENT VERIFIED	state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY · verified_by: UNKNOWN
18	LIMITATIONS	Exact override proportions/magnitudes remain HOLD	—
19	CONTRADICTORY / SUPPORTING SOURCES	Allegheny shows opposite fairness direction for human departure	—
20	GEOGRAPHY / LANGUAGE	US/English	—
21	DISTRIBUTIONAL LEDGER	Black defendants exposed to harsher departures in working-paper evidence	—
22	R01 / FIELD-MAP LINKS	D5, D4a, L-A, L-C	—
23	WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS CLAIM?	Peer-reviewed update reversing the direction	—
24	PUBLICATION STATUS	ELIGIBLE WITH QUALIFIER	state: ELIGIBLE · qualifiers: QUALIFIED
25	RECORDED DATE	2026-10-13	—

Field 22 references resolved against Field Map v0.2: D5 (DOMAIN); D4a (SUB_AREA); L-A (LENS); L-C (LENS)

Research-of-record provenance

Materialized by sociolens-materializer 0.6.0 at 2026-09-28T20:00:00.000Z; normalization contract SocioLens — Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2 — Pre-Spike Materialization Contract (v1.0.2). Content seal SHA-256 af7cc8a452ae8041ad5c89317e3c68a331484e5a725166c1f8ffc91ecc3b856a.

Repository-authored inputs (not Drive exports)

SocioLens claim revision — LD05-HQ-C05 v1.1 (v1.1) — written in the SocioLens repository by Project Lead (Claude, AI) on 2026-10-13; no Drive identity exists. Authority: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and docs/PROJECT.md "Research revisions" (a published claim changes only through a new version that states what changed and why). Block “ENTRY 05 — LD05-HQ-C05” SHA-256 6aad34c70c7fc25d5d6ade83d3ede6e692ea66380e369e4c288079a87ae36a68; fixture fixtures/authored/claim-revisions/LD05-HQ-C05--v1.1.

Builder decisions (not Drive data)

VERSION = v1.1 — basis: Claim version taken from the repository-authored revision fixture version (SocioLens claim revision — LD05-HQ-C05 v1.1); a new version of LD05-HQ-C05 v1.0, which stays routable (AGENTS.md research integrity rule 3)
CURRENT_POINTER = true — basis: repository-authored revision "SocioLens claim revision — LD05-HQ-C05 v1.1" (Project Lead (Claude, AI), 2026-10-13); basis: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and docs/PROJECT.md "Research revisions" (a published claim changes only through a new version that states what changed and why)
FIELD_6_SOURCE_REFERENCE = SRC-LD05-STEVENSON-MINNESOTA-LAW-REVIEW-2018--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 05 — LD05-HQ-C05 cites "Stevenson, “Assessing Risk Assessment in Action,” Minnesota Law Review 103"; the first field-6 segment of this ClaimVersion's repository-authored ledger block; the same Source record LD05-HQ-C05 v1.0 cites.
FIELD_6_SOURCE_REFERENCE = SRC-LD05-ALBRIGHT-RISK-SCORE-2019--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 05 — LD05-HQ-C05 cites "Albright, “If You Give a Judge a Risk Score,” 2019 working paper"; the second field-6 segment of this ClaimVersion's repository-authored ledger block; the same Source record LD05-HQ-C05 v1.0 cites.
SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-LD05-STEVENSON-MINNESOTA-LAW-REVIEW-2018--v1.0 — basis: explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion (Amendment v1.2 §6): the pinned field-6 Source record "Stevenson, “Assessing Risk Assessment in Action,” Minnesota Law Review 103".
SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-LD05-ALBRIGHT-RISK-SCORE-2019--v1.0 — basis: explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion (Amendment v1.2 §6): the pinned field-6 Source record "Albright, “If You Give a Judge a Risk Score,” 2019 working paper".