Merge pull request #301 from ModelMirrorAI/predict/scotus-1002345-evt-petition-disposition-codex-baseline-20260629T090631Z

predict(codex-baseline): scotus/1002345 — evt-petition-disposition

Author: modelmirror

data/cases/scotus/1002345/events/evt-petition-disposition/event.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+case_id: scotus/1002345
+decision_target: disposition
+description: null
+docket_entry_id: null
+event_id: evt-petition-disposition
+kind: petition
+opened_at: null
+resolved: false
+schema_version: '1.0'
+title: Martin v. McKune Warden

data/cases/scotus/1002345/events/evt-petition-disposition/predictions/codex-baseline/20260629T090631Z/prediction.json

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+{
+  "case_id": "scotus/1002345",
+  "confidence": 0.66,
+  "created_at": "2026-06-29T09:18:16Z",
+  "engine": "codex",
+  "event_id": "evt-petition-disposition",
+  "granted": 0,
+  "input_snapshot": "data/cases/scotus/1002345/record/snapshots/2026-06-29.json",
+  "model": "gpt-5",
+  "predicted_disposition": "denied",
+  "predictor_id": "codex-baseline",
+  "probability": 0.06,
+  "reasoning_doc": "reasoning.md",
+  "run_id": "20260629T090631Z",
+  "schema_version": "1.0",
+  "votes": []
+}

data/cases/scotus/1002345/events/evt-petition-disposition/predictions/codex-baseline/20260629T090631Z/reasoning.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Prediction: petition disposition
+
+## Legal question
+
+The event asks whether the petition in `Martin v. McKune Warden`, Supreme Court docket `92-8777`, will be granted or denied.
+
+## Governing standard
+
+A Supreme Court petition is discretionary. Review is ordinarily granted only when the petition presents an important federal question, a conflict among lower courts, or another reason for Supreme Court intervention. Denial is the normal outcome for ordinary petitions, and the Court does not need to explain a denial.
+
+## Snapshot facts used
+
+I used `data/cases/scotus/1002345/record/snapshots/2026-06-29.json`. The snapshot identifies this as a Supreme Court docket for `Martin v. McKune Warden`, docket number `92-8777`, with `court_id` `scotus`. It contains no docket entries, no panel, no argument date, and no explicit `date_cert_granted` or `date_cert_denied`. The snapshot does contain one CourtListener opinion-cluster reference.
+
+## Reasoning
+
+The snapshot does not identify a certworthy question, lower-court split, government petition, argument date, or any docket activity indicating that review was granted. The caption against a warden is consistent with a prisoner or habeas-related petition, a category where the baseline odds of Supreme Court review are low absent a clear vehicle or conflict signal.
+
+The opinion-cluster reference is a relevant counter-signal, but I do not treat it as enough to overcome the denial baseline here. The snapshot lacks the usual grant-related metadata, and Supreme Court order-list or reporter entries can exist even when certiorari is denied. With only the provided snapshot, the more conservative prediction is denial.
+
+I predict the petition will be denied, with a 0.06 probability of grant and 0.66 confidence. I do not predict per-Justice votes because the snapshot has no vote information and petition-stage votes are not normally exposed as merits votes.

data/cases/scotus/1002345/events/evt-petition-disposition/predictions/codex-baseline/20260629T090631Z/usage.json

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+{
+  "actor_id": "codex-baseline",
+  "cache_creation_input_tokens": 0,
+  "cache_read_input_tokens": 343296,
+  "case_id": "scotus/1002345",
+  "created_at": "2026-06-29T09:06:31Z",
+  "engine": "codex",
+  "estimated_cost_usd": 0.494183,
+  "event_id": "evt-petition-disposition",
+  "input_tokens": 25087,
+  "model": "gpt-5.5",
+  "output_tokens": 6570,
+  "role": "predictor",
+  "run_id": "20260629T090631Z",
+  "schema_version": "1.0"
+}