# Adversarial legal persuasion on Strategic Courtroom Framework 10 legal cases trial flow

Source: [Adversarial legal persuasion on Strategic Courtroom Framework 10 legal cases trial flow](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/adversarial-legal-persuasion-on-strategic-courtroom-framework-10-legal-cases-trial-flow>)

Collection index: [llms.txt](<https://www.sota2.com/research/llms.txt>)

Data updated: 2026-04-10T00:48:22.850Z

Evaluation of adversarial legal persuasion capabilities using the Strategic Courtroom Framework 10 legal cases trial flow dataset, measured by Average Defense Elo and Win Rate.

A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage.

| Scope | Recorded value |
| --- | --- |
| Task | Adversarial legal persuasion |
| Dataset (including any stated split) | Strategic Courtroom Framework 10 legal cases trial flow |
| Metric | Average Defense Elo |
| Unit | SCALAR |
| Direction | Higher is better |
| Results loaded | 3 of 3 |
| Coverage | All results currently returned for this benchmark |

Evaluation settings may differ between results. The original papers and recorded configurations are needed to establish comparability. A shared metric name alone does not establish an identical protocol.

## Metrics

- [Average Defense Elo](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/adversarial-legal-persuasion-on-strategic-courtroom-framework-10-legal-cases-trial-flow.md?metric=Average%20Defense%20Elo>): Higher is better; unit: SCALAR.

- [Win Rate](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/adversarial-legal-persuasion-on-strategic-courtroom-framework-10-legal-cases-trial-flow.md?metric=Win%20Rate>): Higher is better; unit: PERCENT.

## Recorded results

| Method | Average Defense Elo | Result date | Report paper |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| RL Orchestrator | 1912.4 | Not recorded | 69d732c47d0172140ec76dd5 |
| Best Static | 1885.3 | Not recorded | 69d732c47d0172140ec76dd5 |
| Best Static | 1869.1 | Not recorded | 69d732c47d0172140ec76dd5 |

### RL Orchestrator

Average Defense Elo: 1912.4. Result ID: 69d8480047f34ce924c07d4f.

[Reporting paper](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/69d732c47d0172140ec76dd5.md>)

[Method origin paper](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/69d732c47d0172140ec76dd5.md>)

Recorded evaluation configuration: {"Type":"RL-based Trait Orchestrator"}. This record does not assert independent reproduction.

### Best Static

Average Defense Elo: 1885.3. Result ID: 69d8480047f34ce924c07d4d.

[Reporting paper](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/69d732c47d0172140ec76dd5.md>)

Recorded evaluation configuration: {"Number of traits":"2"}. This record does not assert independent reproduction.

### Best Static

Average Defense Elo: 1869.1. Result ID: 69d8480047f34ce924c07d4e.

[Reporting paper](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/69d732c47d0172140ec76dd5.md>)

Recorded evaluation configuration: {"Number of traits":"3"}. This record does not assert independent reproduction.

Page 1 of 1. This is an index page, not the full collection.