Update README.md

README.md

@@ -1,3 +1,91 @@
 ---
-license: unknown
+license: other
+language:
+- en
+tags:
+- legal
+- law
+- corporate-law
+- mergers-and-acquisitions
+- evaluation
+- rubrics
+- llm-evaluation
+pretty_name: Legal Tasks Sample Set (Tasks 89 & 93)
+size_categories:
+- n<1K
+task_categories:
+- text-generation
+- question-answering
 ---
+
+# Legal Tasks Sample Set (Tasks #89 & #93)
+
+## Dataset Summary
+
+This is a small, curated sample set of expert-authored **legal reasoning tasks** used to evaluate the quality of long-form legal writing (for example, responses produced by language models or by trainees). It contains **two tasks**, both in the **Corporate & M&A** area, each provided in three progressively refined versions (an original plus two revisions).
+
+Every task pairs a realistic legal prompt with a "gold" model answer written by a subject-matter expert, a detailed scoring rubric, reference materials, and metadata describing how realistic and how difficult the task is. The dataset is intended for evaluation and benchmarking rather than for training.
+
+## Contents
+
+| Task | Area | Jurisdiction | Topic |
+|------|------|-------------|-------|
+| Legal Task #89 | Corporate & M&A | Belgium | Exclusion of a shareholder/CEO under Belgian company law |
+| Legal Task #93 | Corporate & M&A | England & Wales | Share buybacks under the Companies Act 2006 |
+
+## Data Structure
+
+The dataset is a single JSON object. Each top-level key is a task name (`"Legal Task #89"`, `"Legal Task #93"`). Each task contains an `Area` label and three versions:
+
+- **Original Version** — the first draft of the task
+- **Version 1** — a first revision
+- **Version 2** — a further revision
+
+Each version is an object with the following fields:
+
+| Field | Type | Description |
+|-------|------|-------------|
+| `Prompt` | string | The legal question or instruction posed to the writer/model |
+| `Gold Response` | string | The expert-authored reference answer |
+| `Associated Rubrics` | integer | The number of rubric criteria associated with the task |
+| `Rubrics` | list | The scoring rubric — a list of criteria (see below) |
+| `Task Details` | string | Notes on what the task involves and why |
+| `Reference Materials` | string | Source laws, codes, or links used for the answer |
+| `Realistic Task` | integer | Rating (1–5) of how realistic the task is |
+| `Realistic Explanation` | string | Rationale for the realism rating |
+| `Difficult Task` | integer | Rating (1–5) of how difficult the task is |
+| `Difficulty Explanation` | string | Rationale for the difficulty rating |
+
+### Rubric format
+
+Each entry in `Rubrics` is an object with these fields:
+
+- `rubric_category` — the dimension being scored, one of: *Structure & Style Rubric*, *Substance Rubric - Explicit requirements*, *Substance Rubric - Implicit expectations*, *Substance Rubric - Legal correctness*, *Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality*, *Sources and References Rubric*, and *Negative Rubric*.
+- `score_option` — the points available for meeting the criterion.
+- `criterion` — the specific thing being evaluated.
+- `justification` — why the criterion matters.
+
+## Intended Uses
+
+This sample set is designed for:
+
+- Evaluating and benchmarking the quality of AI-generated or human-written legal analysis
+- Studying rubric-based scoring of long-form legal responses
+- Illustrating how legal evaluation tasks are constructed and refined across versions
+
+It is **not** intended as a source of legal advice. The prompts and responses are illustrative legal analyses for evaluation purposes and should not be relied upon for any real legal matter.
+
+## Jurisdictions Covered
+
+- **Belgium** — Belgian Code of Companies and Associations (CCA) and Belgian Judicial Code (Task #89)
+- **England & Wales** — Companies Act 2006 (Task #93)
+
+## Limitations and Notes
+
+- This is a **two-task sample**, not a full dataset; it is meant for demonstration and small-scale evaluation.
+- Content is specific to the corporate-law scenarios described and does not generalize to other legal areas or jurisdictions.
+- Because the file is a single nested JSON object (keyed by task name) rather than a flat table of rows, the Hugging Face Dataset Viewer may not render it as a table. The file remains valid, downloadable, and machine-readable. A JSON Lines (`.jsonl`) version can be produced if a table view is required.
+
+## Citation
+
+If you use this sample set, please credit the original task authors and this repository.