Zefram wrote: > I note that nowhere in this case file do you state what the current > judgement actually is. This seems like a serious failing, in a document > that is meant to be referred to for historical purposes. For that matter, > your case file for CFJ 1897a doesn't formally specify the "to TRUE" > part of the judgement, leaving it to be extracted from the panellists' > arguments.
I'll see about adding a column to the database to record this. The CFJs for which it would need to be back-populated are 1684, 1711, 1740, 1745, 1805, 1812, 1846, 1857-58, and 1896-97.
