Claim LD05-HQ-C14 (v1.1)
An Austrian administrative court (BVwG, September 2025) assigned the substantive final AMAS assessment to counsellors and rejected 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
- 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
- 2026-10-13
- 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-C14--v1.1) — this page never floats to newer evidence.
This pinned version is also the current version.
What changed in this version
This version supersedes LD05-HQ-C14--v1.0, which stays available unchanged.
- Changed fields
- 2 PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM; 6 SOURCE; 25 RECORDED DATE
- What changed
- The public-facing claim now names the one decision HQ verified, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) decision of 1 September 2025, instead of "Austrian courts", and the source field cites only that decision, dropping "prior VwGH/BVwG procedural history". The legal finding and the effective-discretion boundary are unchanged.
- Why
- A claim check on 13 October 2026 found that the HQ notes verify a single decision (BVwG W256 2235360-1, 1 September 2025); HQ recorded the earlier VwGH/BVwG procedural history as part of the legal record but did not verify its content, so the plural "courts" claimed more than the record shows. Field 6 now cites only the verified decision; the same Source record is still cited. The check and this revision were done by AI agents against the HQ notes, not by a person.
Pinned Sources (field 6, version-specific)
- “BVwG W256 2235360-1, decision 1 Sep 2025” → 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 | An Austrian administrative court (BVwG, September 2025) assigned the substantive final AMAS assessment to counsellors and rejected 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 | 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 | 2026-10-13 | — |
Field 22 references resolved against Field Map v0.2: D5 (DOMAIN); D6.3 (SUB_AREA); R-2 (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 405a4867da98be8a3878ad38cac05217bc38629e136d0c660434a5e9061c85b6.
Repository-authored inputs (not Drive exports)
- SocioLens claim revision — LD05-HQ-C14 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 14 — LD05-HQ-C14” SHA-256
100692e89c31c16e22e524c7209efcb712a40da5af565b94aca471d712ee4da7; fixturefixtures/authored/claim-revisions/LD05-HQ-C14--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-C14 v1.1); a new version of LD05-HQ-C14 v1.0, which stays routable (AGENTS.md research integrity rule 3)
- CURRENT_POINTER = true — basis: repository-authored revision "SocioLens claim revision — LD05-HQ-C14 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-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"; the first field-6 segment of this ClaimVersion's repository-authored ledger block; the same Source record LD05-HQ-C14 v1.0 cites.
- SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-R04-AMAS-LEGAL-RECORD-2025--v1.0 — basis: explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion (Amendment v1.2 §6): the pinned field-6 Source record "BVwG W256 2235360-1, decision 1 Sep 2025".