A judge explains a decision and its rule. That decision is linked to sources and earlier cases. A later judge checks whether the rule fits the new facts and explains why. This is precedent: some decisions must be followed; others help the judge reason.
In 13 new coding projects under controlled pressure, Claude Opus 5 broke a rule in 8 of 13 with the mandate alone, and 0 of 13 with rules from other cases (p = .008). False “done” reports fell from 3 to 1 of 13; correctly reported blocked work rose from 5 to 12 of 13. One model, controlled conditions, not a field rate.
In a separate replay pre-test, the rules would have stopped 12 of 13 unseen breaches and wrongly blocked none of 70 compliant sessions. These are replay results, not the live study.
Read the study · Explore rules from past cases