I was worried about explainability, too. If the classifier just spat out "INNOCENT" or "GUILTY," it would be useless -- the legal reasoning has to be part of t

I was worried about explainability, too. If the classifier just spat out "INNOCENT" or "GUILTY," it would be useless -- the legal reasoning has to be part of the output. Looking at the paper, the classifier definitely does output its reasoning: "The legal issue at hand is whether the 50/50 royalty split in the 1961 contract binds only pre-existing affiliates or if it also includes affiliates that come into being after the agreement..."