jusbrasil/indice-jusia

Legal Response Evaluation Rubric

A structured rubric for human evaluation of model-generated legal answers and documents. Each criterion is scored with a small, fixed label set so that annotations stay consistent and easy to aggregate.

Scoring legend

Label	Meaning
YES	The criterion is fully satisfied.
NO	The criterion fails (at least one violation).
N/A	The criterion does not apply to this response.

Criteria are grouped into five dimensions: legal and factual correctness, completeness, reliability, language fluency, and free-form observations.

---

1. Legal and factual correctness

#	Criterion	YES	NO	N/A
1	No legal or factual error? Assesses whether the response preserves factual accuracy and the correctness of the legal arguments used. All propositions are considered (e.g., no misinterpretations or misleading paraphrases, no confusion between court rulings and party arguments, no misidentification of judicial instances).	All propositions are correct.	At least one proposition is incorrect.	—
2	Are all cited legal and jurisprudential references accurate (no hallucination)? All laws, articles, precedents, rulings, or procedural rules cited must exist and be used correctly, without fabrication or distortion of their original meaning.	All references are accurate; no hallucination occurred.	At least one hallucinated reference.	No legal or jurisprudential references were cited.
3	Are jurisdiction and hierarchy correct? The norms and precedents used must belong to the requested jurisdiction and respect judicial hierarchy (higher courts above lower ones).	Correct jurisdiction and hierarchy.	Incorrect jurisdiction or hierarchy.	No norms or precedents were cited.

2. Completeness (structure and adherence)

#	Criterion	YES	NO	N/A
4	Did the response follow the user's instructions? Assesses whether the content covers the topic, scope, specific questions, constraints, and requested format — even if the final answer contradicts the user's desired outcome (e.g., the user requests jurisprudence that does not exist and the response states "no decisions found").	All instructions and/or questions were addressed.	At least one instruction or question was ignored.	—
5	Is the legal document structurally complete? Includes header/qualification (parties, court), facts, legal reasoning, requests, and closing (location/date/signature, when applicable).	Structure is complete.	At least one required structural element is missing.	Not a legal document.

3. Reliability

#	Criterion	YES	NO	N/A
6	Does each legal statement include a verifiable source? Every legal proposition must be immediately supported by a citation.	All statements have a verifiable source (law, precedent, or doctrine).	At least one statement lacks a reference or the source could not be found.	—
7	Are the sources primary/official? Preference for laws, rulings, or official precedents. Avoid secondary sources: articles, news, or citations without links that cannot be verified.	Sources are primary and/or official.	At least one secondary source.	No sources were referenced.
8	Does the citation fully support the statement? The cited excerpt must confirm the proposition (no distortions, no contradictory or outdated precedents).	All citations support the statements.	At least one citation does not support the statement.	No citations.
9	Is there recent jurisprudence (last 5 years)? At least one relevant precedent ≤ 5 years old, or a valid justification if only older precedents are cited.	Recent precedent or valid justification.	Only outdated precedents without justification.	No precedents cited or citation not verifiable.

4. Language fluency (clarity/form)

#	Criterion	YES	NO	N/A
10	Precision and conciseness. The text conveys ideas clearly and directly, without redundancy, colloquialisms, unnecessary adjectives, or vague terms ("it seems," "perhaps") when a clear rule exists.	Fully clear, concise, and well-structured.	Contains at least one confusing, repetitive, or imprecise passage.	—

5. Observations

Free-text field for any additional notes the annotator wants to record: edge cases, justifications for an N/A, partial failures, or context that does not fit the criteria above.

Citation

If you use this rubric, please cite the repository.