Using quantitative risk models can give courts a clear, repeatable way to weigh evidence, but the models must be transparent and validated. If they’re built on solid data and reviewed by independent experts, they can reduce bias and improve consistency. However, if the models are opaque or rely on shaky assumptions, they risk oversimplifying complex facts and erasing the nuance that human judgment provides. So, adopt them only when the methodology is rigorously tested and the results are clearly explainable.

I’ll take your point. A model is only as reliable as the data and the review process behind it. If the court can guarantee full transparency and independent verification, the model can aid consistency. Without that, the narrative approach remains the safer standard.