{
  "date": "2026-09-30",
  "rows": [
    {
      "id": "L01",
      "evidence_kind": "primary philosophical text; later anthology reproduction",
      "read_scope": "Opening and felicity conditions in supplied eleven-page anthology excerpt, PDF pp.1–5; not complete 1962 book",
      "locators": "Anthology printed pp.55–59, especially56–59; anthology pagination is not original book pagination",
      "extraction_RU": "Утверждение не исчерпывает употреблений речи. Высказывание может участвовать в совершении действия; успешность зависит от процедуры, участников и обстоятельств.",
      "extraction_EN": "Uttering a sentence may constitute or participate in an action. The excerpt ties successful performances to procedures, participants and circumstances.",
      "adverse_point": "Nonidentity does not preclude action performed through utterance.",
      "limits": "No criminal-sanction test or empirical assessment; no claim that all utterances require formal institutions.",
      "role": "conceptual constraint",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L02",
      "evidence_kind": "primary philosophical text; university-hosted English reproduction",
      "read_scope": "PDF pp.1–4, corresponding anthology markers pp.22–26; translation and reprint provenance on first page",
      "locators": "PDF pp.1–3; anthology markers pp.23–25; passage on quotation/signs of signs",
      "extraction_RU": "Различает знак, смысл и обозначаемое; цитирование меняет предмет, о котором говорят. Общность смысла не сводится к частному образу читателя.",
      "extraction_EN": "The text distinguishes sign, sense and reference; quotation may make other words the subject. Shared sense is distinguished from an individual mental image.",
      "adverse_point": "Distinguishing inscription from reference is compatible with shared, constrained understanding.",
      "limits": "English translation/reprint, not inspected German original; not a theory of punishment.",
      "role": "conceptual constraint",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L03",
      "evidence_kind": "primary philosophical journal article; academic-hosted reproduction",
      "read_scope": "Selected passages pp.377–379,383–384,386–388, including caveats about intentions; remaining pages not claimed read in full",
      "locators": "Philosophical Review66(3), pp.377–379,382–384,386–388",
      "extraction_RU": "Различает естественное и неестественное значение; во втором случае анализирует намерение и его узнавание адресатом. Это аналитическая модель, не обнаружение умысла обвиняемого.",
      "extraction_EN": "The article distinguishes natural from nonnatural meaning and analyses communicative intention and audience recognition. It does not ascertain any defendant’s mental state.",
      "adverse_point": "An inscription can intentionally influence a hearer without becoming its referent.",
      "limits": "Conceptual proposal with stated qualifications; not a universally necessary criminal mens rea test.",
      "role": "conceptual constraint",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L04",
      "evidence_kind": "primary philosophical book chapter; university-hosted scan",
      "read_scope": "Publication pages and chapter pp.344–347,350–351,358–361; OCR after rotating sideways scan; not a full reading of pp.344–369",
      "locators": "In Keith Gunderson(ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies VII; pp.344–347 and358–361",
      "extraction_RU": "Различает глаголы речевых действий и сами действия. Декларации могут создавать институциональный статус; фактическое утверждение судьи всё ещё проверяемо.",
      "extraction_EN": "The chapter separates verbs from acts. Successful declarations can create institutional status, while a judge’s factual claim remains assessable against the facts.",
      "adverse_point": "Institutional effect can occur through communication although the signs remain signs.",
      "limits": "1975 chapter, not the related 1976 article; its exceptions concerning linguistic declarations do not exempt any word from the project’s inscription boundary.",
      "role": "conceptual constraint",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L05",
      "evidence_kind": "primary philosophical journal article; author-hosted scan",
      "read_scope": "Printed pp.293–304 (first twelve PDF pages), OCR; p.299 separately re-rendered; later silencing section not claimed read",
      "locators": "Philosophy & Public Affairs22(4), pp.293–304; especially296–300,303–304",
      "extraction_RU": "Рассматривает речевые действия подчинения и власти. Признаёт разрыв между состоятельностью такого анализа и самостоятельным обоснованием цензуры.",
      "extraction_EN": "The opening develops speech-act accounts of subordination and authority, while expressly recognising a gap between their defensibility and justification of censorship.",
      "adverse_point": "Speech may participate in oppressive relations; protecting speakers also requires attention to recipients’ ability to speak.",
      "limits": "Conceptual argument conditioned by empirical assumptions; no general criminal-imprisonment conclusion; no claim that later sections were read.",
      "role": "conceptual constraint",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L06",
      "evidence_kind": "primary legal-linguistic journal article",
      "read_scope": "Printed pp.1069–1072",
      "locators": "Washington University Law Quarterly73, pp.1069–1072",
      "extraction_RU": "Лингвистика не диктует суду значение; может помогать объяснять интерпретацию и выявлять неудачное рассуждение о языке.",
      "extraction_EN": "Linguistics does not dictate judicial interpretation, but may improve explanations of interpretation and expose defective analysis of language.",
      "adverse_point": "Ordinary linguistic competence and interpretive constraints are compatible with requiring explicit reasons.",
      "limits": "No empirical error rate or assertion that judicial interpretations are arbitrary.",
      "role": "conceptual constraint",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L07",
      "evidence_kind": "primary corpus/annotation research paper",
      "read_scope": "Introduction; §3.1 and Table1, printed pp.4247–4250; empirical results not used to infer correctness",
      "locators": "LREC-COLING2024; §3.1, Table1, pp.4249–4250",
      "extraction_RU": "Схема отмечает обсуждаемые термины, определения, цитаты, источники и интерпретационные аргументы. Это разметка судебного метаязыка, а не вердикт об истинности.",
      "extraction_EN": "Its scheme annotates terms, definitions, quotations, sources and interpretive arguments. Annotation of judicial metalanguage does not establish a ruling’s truth.",
      "adverse_point": "Public inspection can distinguish different textual roles instead of treating every passage alike.",
      "limits": "Statutory-interpretation corpus; scheme requires adaptation to speech prosecutions, and annotation is itself contestable.",
      "role": "conceptual constraint",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L08",
      "evidence_kind": "primary legal scholarship; author-hosted full article",
      "read_scope": "Selected opening passages pp.1278–1279; III selected passages pp.1328–1329,1334–1335; conclusion p.1348; no claim to full-article reading",
      "locators": "Cornell Law Review90, pp.1326–1335,1347–1348; especially1334–1335",
      "extraction_RU": "Не считает переименование речи в поведение достаточным. Допускает некоторые ограничения речи, требуя разбирать категории и вред как ограничения речи.",
      "extraction_EN": "Renaming speech as conduct is insufficient; some speech restrictions may nevertheless be justified through defined categories and analysis of harm.",
      "adverse_point": "Some communications can be restrictable even while recognised as speech.",
      "limits": "U.S. doctrinal argument as of2005, not current worldwide law; query erroneously used2014, retained in log.",
      "role": "conceptual constraint",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L09",
      "evidence_kind": "official authored multidisciplinary evidence review",
      "read_scope": "Selected passages within printed chapter5: deterrence pp.133–140, incapacitation pp.140–144, conclusion pp.155–156; not every passage or cited underlying study",
      "locators": "Printed pp.139–145,155–156; website path /chapter/7 denotes printed chapter5",
      "extraction_RU": "Различает сдерживание и изоляцию; дополнительные длительные сроки дают ограниченное сдерживание. Допускает профилактическую пользу целевой изоляции опасных частых нарушителей.",
      "extraction_EN": "The chapter separates deterrence from incapacitation: longer already-lengthy sentences yield limited additional deterrence, while targeted incapacitation may prevent serious offending.",
      "adverse_point": "The review does not deny substantial prevention benefits from some targeted imprisonment policies.",
      "limits": "Broad crime evidence, not trials of imprisonment for communication; magnitude and causal identification remain uncertain; web chapter path is not print chapter number.",
      "role": "punishment review",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L10",
      "evidence_kind": "officially hosted authored meta-analytic report1999-3",
      "read_scope": "Executive Summary; Method; Description of Studies; Effects on Recidivism; Discussion; references not individually read",
      "locators": "Section Method/Sample of Studies; Results/Effects on Recidivism and Table1; Discussion",
      "extraction_RU": "В обзоре50 исследований нет снижения повторных нарушений от более долгого заключения. В сравнении с общественными санкциями взвешенный эффект равен нулю; дизайн ограничен.",
      "extraction_EN": "Across50 studies longer imprisonment did not reduce recidivism; the weighted custody/community comparison was null. Study designs limit causal conclusions.",
      "adverse_point": "Authors retain incapacitation/retribution as possible rationales; null postrelease deterrence does not refute every punishment rationale.",
      "limits": "Older heterogeneous largely observational studies, not speech-offence-specific; report’s views are authors’ views, not necessarily government policy.",
      "role": "punishment review",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L11",
      "evidence_kind": "official short research summary; not an independent empirical study",
      "read_scope": "Entire two-page PDF including addendum; corresponding HTML article also read",
      "locators": "May2016, NCJ247350; p.1 points1–4; p.2 addendum and Deterrence and Incapacitation",
      "extraction_RU": "Сводка отдаёт большее значение вероятности задержания, чем усилению наказания. Дополнение сохраняет наказание и изоляцию как самостоятельные цели, отличные от сдерживания.",
      "extraction_EN": "The summary places greater deterrent weight on apprehension certainty than severity. Its addendum preserves punishment and incapacitation as distinct sentencing purposes.",
      "adverse_point": "The addendum allows some short sentences to deter and keeps punishment/incapacitation separate.",
      "limits": "Based substantially on Nagin’s review, not independent replication; Nagin’s full article was not obtained and is not represented as read.",
      "role": "punishment review",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    },
    {
      "id": "L12",
      "evidence_kind": "primary official interpretive document",
      "read_scope": "§§21–25,34–35,46–52; full public document available; decoded UTF-16 BOM",
      "locators": "CCPR/C/GC/34,12September2011; §§22,25,34–35,47,50–52",
      "extraction_RU": "Требует определённости, необходимости и соразмерности ограничений. В§47 отвергает заключение за диффамацию;§§50–52 сохраняют отдельную роль запретов статьи20.",
      "extraction_EN": "It requires precise, necessary and proportionate restrictions;§47 rejects imprisonment for defamation, while§§50–52 preserve Article20’s distinct prohibition requirements.",
      "adverse_point": "Some expression prohibitions are required; defamation guidance cannot be expanded into universal existing immunity.",
      "limits": "Interpretive authority, not new global criminal code or empirical evidence; §47 is limited to defamation.",
      "role": "legal interpretation",
      "conclusion_status": "The source account is a reading with cited locators; original synthesis is separately identified in both essays."
    }
  ]
}