Claim LD05-HQ-C14 (v1.0)
Austrian courts assign the substantive final AMAS assessment to counsellors and reject classification of the process as solely automated; this legal finding does not establish effective discretion in practice.
Provenance and status
- Claim type
- FACT + INTERPRETATION (as printed: “FACT + INTERPRETATION”)
- Publication status
- ELIGIBLE (LEGAL_EMPIRICAL_DISTINCTION) (as printed: “ELIGIBLE WITH LEGAL/EMPIRICAL QUALIFIER”)
- Verification state
- CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY (as printed: “CONTENT VERIFIED”; verified by: UNKNOWN)
- Does not license
- Empirical claim about actual override/deference rates
- Source (field 6, as printed)
- BVwG W256 2235360-1, decision 1 Sep 2025; prior VwGH/BVwG procedural history
- Source type (field 7)
- LEGAL_PRIMARY (as printed: “Legal primary”)
- Institutional position
- Court
- Maturity (claim evidence / publication maturity)
- RAPIDLY_MATURING (as printed: “RAPIDLY MATURING”)
- Recorded date
- 2026-09-25
- Currentness / correction
- This is not the current version. No correction or concern relation is recorded on its Sources.
Version
Pinned version v1.0 (entry LD05-HQ-C14--v1.0) — this page never floats to newer evidence.
NEWER VERSION EXISTS: the current version is LD05-HQ-C14--v1.1. This version is explicitly superseded by LD05-HQ-C14--v1.1.
Pinned Sources (field 6, version-specific)
- “BVwG W256 2235360-1, decision 1 Sep 2025; prior VwGH/BVwG procedural history” → SRC-R04-AMAS-LEGAL-RECORD-2025--v1.0 — BVwG W256 2235360-1, decision 1 Sep 2025; prior VwGH/BVwG procedural history; class LEGAL_PRIMARY (explicit public provenance pin)
Read the originals
- SRC-R04-AMAS-LEGAL-RECORD-2025: open one of the original documents
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-C14 | — |
| 2 | PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM | Austrian courts assign the substantive final AMAS assessment to counsellors and reject classification of the process as solely automated; this legal finding does not establish effective discretion in practice. | — |
| 3 | CLAIM TYPE | FACT + INTERPRETATION | base_types: FACT, INTERPRETATION |
| 4 | RESEARCH STRAND | G/B | — |
| 5 | MATURITY | RAPIDLY MATURING | states: RAPIDLY_MATURING |
| 6 | SOURCE | BVwG W256 2235360-1, decision 1 Sep 2025; prior VwGH/BVwG procedural history | source_ids: SRC-R04-AMAS-LEGAL-RECORD-2025 |
| 7 | SOURCE TYPE | Legal primary | classes: LEGAL_PRIMARY |
| 8 | INSTITUTIONAL POSITION | Court | — |
| 9 | SCOPE | Austria public employment service | — |
| 10 | DESIGN | Legal adjudication | — |
| 11 | SAMPLE / DATASET | AMAS rules, internal controls, case record | — |
| 12 | MODEL / TOOL / VERSION | AMAS | — |
| 13 | COMPARATOR | Solely automated decision vs human-assisted decision | — |
| 14 | MAIN RESULT | Counsellors legally retain final assessment; Article 22 solely-automated classification rejected | — |
| 15 | INFERENTIAL TARGET | Legal attribution of decision | — |
| 16 | DOES NOT LICENSE | Empirical claim about actual override/deference rates | — |
| 17 | VERIFICATION STATE | CONTENT VERIFIED | state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY · verified_by: UNKNOWN |
| 18 | LIMITATIONS | Legal record, not field study of daily practice | — |
| 19 | CONTRADICTORY / SUPPORTING SOURCES | Earlier critical/qualitative literature raises implementation concerns but does not overturn legal estimand | — |
| 20 | GEOGRAPHY / LANGUAGE | Austria/German | — |
| 21 | DISTRIBUTIONAL LEDGER | Distributional effects not established by this legal holding | — |
| 22 | R01 / FIELD-MAP LINKS | D5, D6.3, R-2 | — |
| 23 | WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS CLAIM? | Later court ruling or field evidence changing effective-discretion assessment | — |
| 24 | PUBLICATION STATUS | ELIGIBLE WITH LEGAL/EMPIRICAL QUALIFIER | state: ELIGIBLE · qualifiers: LEGAL_EMPIRICAL_DISTINCTION |
| 25 | RECORDED DATE | 2026-09-25 | — |
Field 22 references resolved against Field Map v0.2: D5 (DOMAIN); D6.3 (SUB_AREA); R-2 (LENS)
Cited by Living Debate versions
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 491599f091cb059997280430d8fbd46d1894bf197ebaaf14c73a585ee0551b2d.
Frozen Drive-derived inputs
- R04 — LD-05 Canonical Claim Ledger v1.0 — LOCKED (v1.0) — Drive ID
1WkAv7jmWIrr1GBmYSv66jDc8m222Yd9z; revision: NOT_EXPOSED_BY_DRIVE_TEXT_EXPORT; Drive modified ; block “ENTRY 14 — LD05-HQ-C14” SHA-256b00d541e55aadb6f235d17c7dcac4b62378a29788a0033e32260d440067e7b9c; SocioLens — Programme Status & Authority Register v0.6 status “CURRENT.”; frozen fixturefixtures/frozen/r04-ld05-claim-ledger-v1.0.
Builder decisions (not Drive data)
- VERSION = v1.0 — basis: Claim version taken from the canonical ledger artifact version (R04 — LD-05 Canonical Claim Ledger v1.0); Implementation Architecture Selection §5
- CURRENT_POINTER = false — basis: not current: superseded by LD05-HQ-C14--v1.1 (manifest supersedes relation)
- FIELD_6_SOURCE_REFERENCE = SRC-R04-AMAS-LEGAL-RECORD-2025--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 14 — LD05-HQ-C14 cites "BVwG W256 2235360-1, decision 1 Sep 2025; prior VwGH/BVwG procedural history"; Central HQ ruling embedded in Issue (this issue), item 3; the citation is the whole verbatim frozen field-6 text of this ClaimVersion, equal to the composite Source's canonical label.
- SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-R04-AMAS-LEGAL-RECORD-2025--v1.0 — basis: Issue #5 proof rendering (Architecture Proof Protocol v0.1 AP-08 / Amendment v1.2 §6): explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion — the pinned field-6 Source record.