Integration Testing Scenarios

These scenarios cover the primary decision paths, error conditions, and edge cases your integration should handle. Each happy-path scenario includes a real sample response you can use as a reference for field mapping and assertion logic.

Scenario Summary

#	Scenario	Search ID	`record_decision`	`search_queue`	Key Validation
1	Single offense, traffic, dismissed	40929433	NOT_REPORTABLE	Automation	1 charge auto-cleared by rules
2	Multiple offenses, all not reportable	40832032	NOT_REPORTABLE	Automation	3 charges across 3 courts, all cleared
3	Dismissed traffic charges, older records	41537337	NOT_REPORTABLE	Automation	4 offenses, low identity match (40%)
4	Mixed: some reportable, some not	41991032	REPORTABLE	Auditor	1 REPORTABLE + 4 NOT_REPORTABLE cases
5	Reportable with multiple convictions	41274791	REPORTABLE	Auditor	3 guilty charges, state-specific rules
6	Insufficient data, medium identity	41002798	MANUAL_REVIEW	Insufficient Data	Identity 80%, mixed offense decisions
7	Insufficient reportability data	40697757	REPORTABLE	Auditor	High identity but missing offense data

Scenario 1 — Single Offense, Not Reportable

Search ID: 40929433 | Candidate: Ebony Ferrell | State: TX | Type: USA_CRIMINAL_PLUS A single speeding charge auto-cleared by traffic exclusion rules. Simplest possible path. What to Assert:

decision.record_decision = NOT_REPORTABLE
decision.search_queue = Automation
1 court, 1 case, 1 offense
case_decision = NOT_REPORTABLE, case_queue = Automation
charge_decision = NOT_REPORTABLE, needs_human_review = false
routing.queue = Automation, routing.is_automatable = true
cited_rules includes GENERAL_TRAFFIC_NON_REPORT, EXCLUSION_FILTER_CHARGE
id_match.is_match = true, match_score = 0.85

Sample Response (condensed)

{
  "decision": {
    "search_id": "40929433",
    "record_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
    "search_queue": "Automation",
    "court_decisions": [{
      "court_queue": "Automation",
      "court_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
      "case_decisions": [{
        "case_number": "",
        "case_queue": "Automation",
        "case_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
        "jurisdiction_state": "TX",
        "id_match": { "is_match": true, "match_score": 0.85 },
        "offenses": [{
          "offense_id": "34789896",
          "charge": "SPEEDING 15MPH OR MORE (ST RD) (SERIOUSTRAF VIOL) 60 MPH IN A 40 MPH ZONE",
          "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
          "rationale": "The traffic violations are not reportable, unless it's a felony.\nGeneral traffic charges are not reportable.\nExclusion rule filters common non-reportable cases considering charge.\n",
          "cited_rules": ["GENERAL_TRAFFIC_NON_REPORT", "GENERAL_EX_RULES_TRAFFIC", "EXCLUSION_FILTER_CHARGE"],
          "routing": { "queue": "Automation", "reportability": "Not Reportable", "is_automatable": true, "identity_level": "Medium", "identity_score": 0.85 }
        }]
      }]
    }]
  }
}

Scenario 2 — Multiple Offenses, All Not Reportable

Search ID: 40832032 | Candidate: Erline Lacombe | State: FL | Type: USA_CRIMINAL_OFFENDER Three charges across three court searches — a traffic violation (guilty but old), and two battery charges with “No Information” dispositions. All cleared by rules. What to Assert:

decision.record_decision = NOT_REPORTABLE
decision.search_queue = Automation
3 courts, 3 cases, 3 offenses — all NOT_REPORTABLE / Automation
Different rules applied per charge: traffic rules vs. disposition-based rules
id_match.match_score = 0.85 on all cases

Sample Response (condensed)

{
  "decision": {
    "record_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
    "search_queue": "Automation",
    "court_decisions": [
      {
        "court_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
        "case_decisions": [{
          "case_number": "13081231TI40A",
          "case_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
          "offenses": [{
            "offense_id": "34696557",
            "charge": "Red Light Camera Violation",
            "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
            "cited_rules": ["FL_CONV_NO_STATE_LIMIT", "GENERAL_TRAFFIC_NON_REPORT", "GENERAL_NON_REPORT_OVER_7YR", "GENERAL_EX_RULES_INFRACTION", "GENERAL_EX_RULES_TRAFFIC", "EXCLUSION_FILTER_CASE_NUMBER"],
            "routing": { "queue": "Automation", "reportability": "Not Reportable" }
          }]
        }]
      },
      {
        "court_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
        "case_decisions": [{
          "case_number": "23007248MM10A",
          "case_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
          "offenses": [{
            "offense_id": "34696558",
            "charge": "BATTERY",
            "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
            "cited_rules": ["GENERAL_DSIP_NON_REPORT", "GENERAL_EX_RULES_INFRACTION", "EXCLUSION_FILTER_DISPOSITION"],
            "routing": { "queue": "Automation", "reportability": "Not Reportable" }
          }]
        }]
      },
      {
        "court_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
        "case_decisions": [{
          "case_number": "23007248MM10A",
          "case_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
          "offenses": [{
            "offense_id": "34696559",
            "charge": "Battery",
            "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
            "cited_rules": ["GENERAL_DSIP_NON_REPORT", "GENERAL_EX_RULES_INFRACTION", "EXCLUSION_FILTER_DISPOSITION"],
            "routing": { "queue": "Automation", "reportability": "Not Reportable" }
          }]
        }]
      }
    ]
  }
}

Scenario 3 — Dismissed Traffic Charges, Low Identity

Search ID: 41537337 | Candidate: Brian Briley | State: KS | Type: USA_CRIMINAL_OFFENDER Four dismissed traffic charges across two court searches. Identity match is Not Enough Info (40%) — only DOB matched, name did not. All charges still routed to Automation because they are Not Reportable regardless of identity level. What to Assert:

decision.record_decision = NOT_REPORTABLE
decision.search_queue = Automation
id_match.is_match = false, match_score = 0.40
routing.identity_level = Not Enough Info on all offenses
All 4 offenses: charge_decision = NOT_REPORTABLE, routing.queue = Automation

Sample Response (condensed)

{
  "decision": {
    "record_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
    "search_queue": "Automation",
    "court_decisions": [{
      "case_decisions": [{
        "case_number": "01TC08508",
        "case_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
        "id_match": { "is_match": false, "match_score": 0.4, "name_score": 0, "dob_score": 0.4 },
        "offenses": [
          { "offense_id": "35386283", "charge": "NO LIABILITY INSURANCE", "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE", "routing": { "queue": "Automation", "identity_level": "Not Enough Info", "identity_score": 0.4 } },
          { "offense_id": "35386284", "charge": "DRIVE WHILE SUSPENDED/1ST OFF", "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE", "routing": { "queue": "Automation", "identity_level": "Not Enough Info", "identity_score": 0.4 } }
        ]
      }]
    }]
  }
}

Scenario 4 — Mixed Cases: Reportable + Not Reportable

Search ID: 41991032 | Candidate: Michealah Hartman | State: IA | Type: County_criminal Five cases under one court search. One DUI conviction is REPORTABLE (Auditor queue), four traffic charges are NOT_REPORTABLE (Automation). The single reportable case escalates the entire search to REPORTABLE / Auditor. What to Assert:

decision.record_decision = REPORTABLE (escalated by 1 reportable case)
decision.search_queue = Auditor (Auditor > Automation in rollup)
Case 08291 OWIN027732: case_decision = REPORTABLE, case_queue = Auditor
Other 4 cases: case_decision = NOT_REPORTABLE, case_queue = Automation
Reportable offense: cited_rules includes GENERAL_DUI_MISD_REPORTABLE

Sample Response (condensed)

{
  "decision": {
    "record_decision": "REPORTABLE",
    "search_queue": "Auditor",
    "court_decisions": [{
      "court_decision": "REPORTABLE",
      "case_decisions": [
        { "case_number": "08291 NTA0064479", "case_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE", "case_queue": "Automation",
          "offenses": [{ "charge": "DUS - DRIVING WHILE LICENSE DENIED...", "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE", "routing": { "queue": "Automation" } }] },
        { "case_number": "08291 OWIN027732", "case_decision": "REPORTABLE", "case_queue": "Auditor",
          "offenses": [{ "charge": "OPERATING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE 1ST OFFENSE", "charge_decision": "REPORTABLE", "routing": { "queue": "Auditor", "reportability": "Reportable" } }] },
        { "case_number": "08291 SMSM046064", "case_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE", "case_queue": "Automation" },
        { "case_number": "08291 SRIN027850", "case_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE", "case_queue": "Automation" },
        { "case_number": "08291 STA0045633", "case_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE", "case_queue": "Automation" }
      ]
    }]
  }
}

Scenario 5 — Reportable with Multiple Convictions

Search ID: 41274791 | Candidate: Vanessa Stanley | State: CA | Type: County_criminal Three guilty charges in Colorado — Disturbing the Peace, Assault, and Public Fighting. All are reportable under state-specific rules with legal citations. What to Assert:

decision.record_decision = REPORTABLE
decision.search_queue = Auditor
All 3 offenses: charge_decision = REPORTABLE
cited_rules includes state-specific CO_CONV_NO_STATE_LIMIT
citations populated with Colorado statute references
routing.reportability = Not Enough Info (insufficient reportability data despite conviction)

Sample Response (condensed)

{
  "decision": {
    "record_decision": "REPORTABLE",
    "search_queue": "Auditor",
    "court_decisions": [{
      "case_decisions": [{
        "case_number": "25GS006878",
        "case_decision": "REPORTABLE",
        "jurisdiction_state": "CO",
        "offenses": [
          { "offense_id": "35117601", "charge": "DISTURBING THE PEACE", "charge_decision": "REPORTABLE",
            "cited_rules": ["CO_CONV_NO_STATE_LIMIT"], "citations": ["Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-14.3-105"],
            "routing": { "queue": "Auditor", "reportability": "Not Enough Info" } },
          { "offense_id": "35117602", "charge": "ASSAULT", "charge_decision": "REPORTABLE",
            "cited_rules": ["CO_CONV_NO_STATE_LIMIT", "GENERAL_CRIMINAL_REPORT_UNDER_7YR"],
            "routing": { "queue": "Auditor" } },
          { "offense_id": "35117603", "charge": "PUBLIC FIGHTING", "charge_decision": "REPORTABLE",
            "cited_rules": ["CO_CONV_NO_STATE_LIMIT"],
            "routing": { "queue": "Auditor" } }
        ]
      }]
    }]
  }
}

Scenario 6 — Insufficient Data, Medium Identity

Search ID: 41002798 | Candidate: TIM TAYLOR | State: KS | Type: County_criminal Identity match is Medium (80%, below the 85% threshold) with identity_insufficient: true. Mixed offense decisions — some reportable (guilty pleas), some dismissed. The insufficient identity data escalates the reportable charges to Insufficient Data queue. What to Assert:

decision.record_decision = MANUAL_REVIEW
decision.search_queue = Insufficient Data
id_match.is_match = false, match_score = 0.80, identity_insufficient = true on reportable charges
Reportable charges → routing.queue = Insufficient Data (because identity is insufficient)
Dismissed charges → routing.queue = Automation (Not Reportable bypasses identity concern)
routing.identity_level = Not Enough Info on reportable charges, Medium on dismissed charges

Sample Response (condensed)

{
  "decision": {
    "record_decision": "MANUAL_REVIEW",
    "search_queue": "Insufficient Data",
    "court_decisions": [
      {
        "case_decisions": [{
          "case_number": "2019-CR-000130",
          "case_decision": "MANUAL_REVIEW",
          "case_queue": "Insufficient Data",
          "id_match": { "is_match": false, "match_score": 0.8 },
          "offenses": [
            { "offense_id": "34868564", "charge": "Domestic battery...", "charge_decision": "REPORTABLE",
              "routing": { "queue": "Insufficient Data", "identity_level": "Not Enough Info", "identity_insufficient": true } },
            { "offense_id": "34868565", "charge": "Aggravated battery...", "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
              "routing": { "queue": "Automation", "identity_level": "Medium", "identity_insufficient": false } },
            { "offense_id": "34868566", "charge": "Criminal damage to property...", "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE",
              "routing": { "queue": "Automation", "identity_level": "Medium" } }
          ]
        }]
      },
      {
        "case_decisions": [{
          "case_number": "2020-TR-001261",
          "case_decision": "MANUAL_REVIEW",
          "case_queue": "Insufficient Data",
          "offenses": [
            { "offense_id": "34868567", "charge": "Driving under influence; 3rd conv...", "charge_decision": "REPORTABLE",
              "routing": { "queue": "Insufficient Data", "identity_level": "Not Enough Info", "identity_insufficient": true } },
            { "offense_id": "34868568", "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE", "routing": { "queue": "Automation" } },
            { "offense_id": "34868569", "charge_decision": "NOT_REPORTABLE", "routing": { "queue": "Automation" } }
          ]
        }]
      }
    ]
  }
}

Scenario 7 — Insufficient Reportability Data

Search ID: 40697757 | Candidate: Bryanna Carr | State: NC | Type: USA_CRIMINAL Identity qualifies as a match (85%) but offense data is too sparse — charges are “Not Specified” with missing dispositions. The engine cannot determine reportability, so charges go to MANUAL_REVIEW and route to Auditor. What to Assert:

decision.record_decision = REPORTABLE
decision.search_queue = Auditor
id_match.is_match = true, match_score = 0.85
charge_decision = MANUAL_REVIEW (not enough info to auto-decide)
routing.reportability = Not Enough Info
routing.reportability_insufficient = true
cited_rules = [] (no rules could be applied)
validation.issues.errors count = 16 (extensive missing data)

Sample Response (condensed)

{
  "decision": {
    "record_decision": "REPORTABLE",
    "search_queue": "Auditor",
    "court_decisions": [
      {
        "case_decisions": [{
          "case_number": "2022D  706536",
          "case_decision": "REPORTABLE",
          "case_queue": "Auditor",
          "id_match": { "is_match": true, "match_score": 0.85, "name_score": 0.45, "dob_score": 0.4 },
          "offenses": [{
            "offense_id": "34569352",
            "charge": "Not Specified",
            "charge_decision": "MANUAL_REVIEW",
            "rationale": "Manual review required, no rules applicable",
            "cited_rules": [],
            "routing": { "queue": "Auditor", "reportability": "Not Enough Info", "reportability_insufficient": true, "identity_level": "Medium" }
          }]
        }]
      },
      {
        "case_decisions": [{
          "case_number": "2023D  713316",
          "case_decision": "REPORTABLE",
          "case_queue": "Auditor",
          "offenses": [{
            "offense_id": "34569353",
            "charge": "Not Specified",
            "charge_decision": "MANUAL_REVIEW",
            "routing": { "queue": "Auditor", "reportability": "Not Enough Info", "reportability_insufficient": true }
          }]
        }]
      }
    ]
  }
}

Error and Edge-Case Scenarios

Input Validation Errors (HTTP 422)

Scenario	Trigger	Expected Status	Expected Response
Missing `search_id`	Omit `record.search_id`	422	`{"detail": [{"loc": ["body", "record", "search_id"], "msg": "field required", "type": "value_error.missing"}]}`
Missing `xml`	Omit `record.xml`	422	Validation error for missing XML field
Missing `candidate_info`	Omit `record.candidate_info`	400	`candidate_info must not be empty`
Empty `candidate_info`	Send `candidate_info: {}` or `null`	400	`candidate_info must not be empty`
Invalid `candidate_info`	Provide `candidate_info` without `first_name`, `last_name`, or `date_of_birth` (or with empty strings)	400	`candidate_info requires at minimum: first_name, last_name, and date_of_birth`
Malformed XML	Send truncated or garbled XML	500	XML parsing error from the transformer service

`cases[]` Behavior

Scenario	Trigger	Expected Status	Expected Response
Missing `cases`	Omit `cases`	200 (success)	All offenses in the record are evaluated
Empty `cases`	Send `cases: []`	200 (success)	Same as omitting `cases` — all offenses are evaluated

Processing Failures — Court Search ID / Offense ID Count Mismatch (HTTP 500 on `/evaluate`)

Scenario	Trigger	Expected Status	Expected Response
Partial `cases[]` count mismatch	Send fewer distinct court search IDs or fewer offense ID rows than XML/record_json (e.g., 17 / 22 vs XML 24 cases / 32 offenses)	500 (failed)	`success: false`, `data.status: "failed"`, `data.errors[]` includes `XML-Transformer HTTP error 422: Court search ID and offense ID counts do not match the XML: ...`, `data.degradation.xml_transformer.status: "failed"`, `data.degradation.compliance_engine.status: "not_called"`. XML-Transformer returns HTTP 422 internally (`error_code: CASE_OFFENSE_COUNT_MISMATCH`).

Authentication Errors (HTTP 401/403)

Scenario	Trigger	Expected Status	Expected Response
Missing API key	Call `/auth/token` without `X-API-Key` header	401	`{"detail": "API key is required"}`
Invalid API key	Call `/auth/token` with wrong key	401	`{"detail": "Invalid API key"}`
Expired JWT	Call `/evaluate` with expired Bearer token	401	`{"detail": "Token has expired"}`
Tampered JWT	Call `/evaluate` with modified Bearer token	403	`{"detail": "Could not validate credentials"}`

Rate Limiting (HTTP 429)

Scenario	Trigger	Expected Status	Expected Response
Rate limit exceeded	Exceed configured requests per minute	429	`{"detail": "Rate limit exceeded. Try again later."}`

Rate limits are enforced per API key. Include retry logic with exponential backoff for 429 responses. Contact the AI Team for your account’s specific limit.

Identity Match and Routing Impact

Identity matching determines who the record belongs to. The identity score directly controls which routing queue a charge is assigned to.

Identity-to-Routing Matrix

Routing is driven by whether the identity matches the candidate (is_match) and the charge’s reportability:

Identity	Reportable Charge	Not Reportable Charge	Reportability Not Enough Info
Matches (`is_match: true`)	Auditor	Automation	Auditor
Does not match (`Not Matching`)	Automation	Automation	Automation
Insufficient identity data	Insufficient Data	Automation	Insufficient Data

How Identity Score is Calculated

Field	Weight	Notes
Name	45%	First + last name match. Middle name is optional.
DOB	40%	Full date match required. Year-only = partial.
SSN	10%	All 9 digits must match exactly.
Address	5%	Standardized comparison. No partial match.

Common Score Scenarios

Available Data	Max Score	Identity Level	`is_match`
Name + DOB + SSN + Address	100%	High	true
Name + DOB + Address (no SSN)	90%	High	true
Name + DOB only	85%	Medium	true (is_match boundary)
Partial name + DOB	80%	Medium	false
DOB only	40%	Not Enough Info	false

Identity Impact in Our Samples

Search ID	`match_score`	`identity_level`	Impact on Routing
40929433	0.85	Medium	Not Reportable = Automation
41002798	0.80	Medium / Not Enough Info	Reportable + Insufficient Identity = Insufficient Data
41537337	0.40	Not Enough Info	Not Reportable = still Automation (exclusion filter override)
40697757	0.85	Medium	Reportability Not Enough Info + match = Auditor

Search Type Differences

The ubs_search_type field in the response reflects the type of search that was requested. The response format is identical across all types.

Search Type	Description
`USA_CRIMINAL`	Standard criminal record search
`USA_CRIMINAL_OFFENDER`	Offender registry search (may include sex offender registries)
`USA_CRIMINAL_PLUS`	Extended criminal search with additional data sources
`County_criminal`	County-level court records search

Rationale Structure Guide

Each offense in the response includes a rationale field (human-readable text) and a cited_rules array (machine-readable rule identifiers). Your back-office can aggregate these to build case-level summaries.

Per-Offense Fields

Field	Type	Description
`offenses[].rationale`	string	Multi-line text explaining why the charge was decided as it was
`offenses[].cited_rules`	string[]	Rule IDs that fired (e.g., `GENERAL_DSIP_NON_REPORT`)
`offenses[].citations`	string[]	Legal statute references when applicable
`offenses[].charge_decision`	string	`REPORTABLE`, `NOT_REPORTABLE`, or `MANUAL_REVIEW`
`offenses[].needs_human_review`	boolean	`true` when no rules could fully resolve the charge

Building a Case-Level Rationale

To build the format:

Case Number XXXXX, ChargeID YYYYY (CHARGE_DESCRIPTION)
  cleared based on Rule(s): RULE_ID_1, RULE_ID_2
  Rationale: [rationale text]
CaseID XXXXX cleared. Exclusion Rule(s) have cleared N of M charges on this case.

Map from these response fields:

Your Format	Response Field
Case Number	`case_decisions[].case_number`
ChargeID	`offenses[].offense_id`
Charge description	`offenses[].charge`
Rule IDs	`offenses[].cited_rules[]`
Rationale text	`offenses[].rationale`
Case-level decision	`case_decisions[].case_decision`

Example — Scenario 4 (Mixed Decisions)

From search 41991032, case 08291 OWIN027732:

Case Number 08291 OWIN027732, ChargeID 35829708 (OPERATING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE 1ST OFFENSE)
  Decision: REPORTABLE
  Rules: GENERAL_DUI_MISD_REPORTABLE, GENERAL_CRIMINAL_REPORT_UNDER_7YR
  Rationale: DUI violations that are convicted are reportable, within the scope of 7 years.
             Criminal charges are reportable within the scope of 7 years unless they're infractions or minor.

Case 08291 OWIN027732: REPORTABLE. 1 of 1 charges are reportable.

From the same search, case 08291 NTA0064479:

Case Number 08291 NTA0064479, ChargeID 35829707 (DUS - DRIVING WHILE LICENSE DENIED...)
  Decision: NOT_REPORTABLE
  Rules: GENERAL_TRAFFIC_NON_REPORT, GENERAL_EX_RULES_TRAFFIC, EXCLUSION_FILTER_CHARGE
  Rationale: The traffic violations are not reportable, unless it's a felony.

Case 08291 NTA0064479: NOT_REPORTABLE. Exclusion Rule(s) have cleared 1 of 1 charges.

Queue Rollup Logic

Offense-level queues roll up to case, court, and search level using a fixed precedence.

Precedence (highest wins)

Insufficient Data — if any child queue is Insufficient Data, the parent is Insufficient Data
Auditor — if any child queue is Auditor, the parent is Auditor
Automation — parent is Automation only when every child is Automation

Rollup Examples from Our Samples

Scenario 4 — One reportable escalates the whole search:

Offense 35829707: Automation (NOT_REPORTABLE, traffic)
Offense 35829708: Auditor   (REPORTABLE, DUI conviction)
Offense 35829709: Automation (NOT_REPORTABLE, traffic)
Offense 35829710: Automation (NOT_REPORTABLE, dismissed)
Offense 35829711: Automation (NOT_REPORTABLE, traffic)

→ case OWIN027732: Auditor (has one Auditor child)
→ other cases: Automation (all children Automation)
→ court_queue: Auditor (Auditor > Automation)
→ search_queue: Auditor
→ record_decision: REPORTABLE

Scenario 6 — Insufficient data overrides everything:

Offense 34868564: Insufficient Data (REPORTABLE + identity insufficient)
Offense 34868565: Automation (NOT_REPORTABLE)
Offense 34868566: Automation (NOT_REPORTABLE)

→ case 2019-CR-000130: Insufficient Data (one child is Insufficient Data)
→ search_queue: Insufficient Data
→ record_decision: MANUAL_REVIEW

Scenario 2 — Clean automation:

Offense 34696557: Automation
Offense 34696558: Automation
Offense 34696559: Automation

→ All cases: Automation
→ search_queue: Automation
→ record_decision: NOT_REPORTABLE

Field Reference

Response Envelope

Field	Description
`success`	`true` on 200, `false` on error
`data`	Full response payload (see below)
`meta.api_version`	API version (currently `2.0.0`)
`meta.process_time_ms`	Total server processing time
`meta.correlation_id`	Unique ID for request tracing

Decision Fields

Field Path	Values	Description
`data.decision.record_decision`	`REPORTABLE`, `NOT_REPORTABLE`, `MANUAL_REVIEW`	Top-level outcome for the entire search
`data.decision.search_queue`	`Automation`, `Auditor`, `Insufficient Data`	Top-level routing queue
`data.decision.court_decisions[].court_decision`	same as record_decision	Per-court outcome
`data.decision.court_decisions[].court_queue`	same as search_queue	Per-court routing
`data.decision.court_decisions[].case_decisions[].case_decision`	same as record_decision	Per-case outcome
`data.decision.court_decisions[].case_decisions[].case_queue`	same as search_queue	Per-case routing

Offense Fields

Field Path	Description
`offenses[].offense_id`	Unique identifier for the charge
`offenses[].charge`	Charge description text
`offenses[].charge_decision`	`REPORTABLE`, `NOT_REPORTABLE`, or `MANUAL_REVIEW`
`offenses[].rationale`	Human-readable reasoning
`offenses[].cited_rules`	Machine-readable rule IDs
`offenses[].citations`	Legal statute references
`offenses[].needs_human_review`	`true` if no rules fully resolved the charge
`offenses[].routing.queue`	`Automation`, `Auditor`, or `Insufficient Data`
`offenses[].routing.reportability`	`Reportable`, `Not Reportable`, or `Not Enough Info`
`offenses[].routing.is_automatable`	`true` only when queue is `Automation`
`offenses[].routing.identity_level`	`High`, `Medium`, `Not Enough Info`, or `Not Matching`
`offenses[].routing.identity_score`	Numeric score (0–1)

Validation Fields

Field Path	Description
`data.validation.status`	`clean` or `needs_manual_review`
`data.validation.issues.errors[]`	Data quality issues (missing fields, indeterminate values)
`data.validation.issues.warnings[]`	Lower-severity issues (low confidence, date fallbacks)

Decision Flow

Evaluate Endpoint — Full API reference for /evaluate
Routing & Queues — Detailed routing matrix and rollup logic
Identity Matching Logic — Field-level matching rules and scoring
Authentication — API key and JWT setup
Error Handling — Error response formats

Core Concepts

Guides

Examples

Support

Integration Testing Scenarios

Scenario Summary

Scenario 1 — Single Offense, Not Reportable

Scenario 2 — Multiple Offenses, All Not Reportable

Scenario 3 — Dismissed Traffic Charges, Low Identity

Scenario 4 — Mixed Cases: Reportable + Not Reportable

Scenario 5 — Reportable with Multiple Convictions

Scenario 6 — Insufficient Data, Medium Identity

Scenario 7 — Insufficient Reportability Data

Error and Edge-Case Scenarios

Input Validation Errors (HTTP 422)

`cases[]` Behavior

Processing Failures — Court Search ID / Offense ID Count Mismatch (HTTP 500 on `/evaluate`)

Authentication Errors (HTTP 401/403)

Rate Limiting (HTTP 429)

Identity Match and Routing Impact

Identity-to-Routing Matrix

How Identity Score is Calculated

Common Score Scenarios

Identity Impact in Our Samples

Search Type Differences

Rationale Structure Guide

Per-Offense Fields

Building a Case-Level Rationale

Example — Scenario 4 (Mixed Decisions)

Queue Rollup Logic

Precedence (highest wins)

Rollup Examples from Our Samples

Field Reference

Response Envelope

Decision Fields

Offense Fields

Validation Fields

Decision Flow

​Scenario Summary

​Scenario 1 — Single Offense, Not Reportable

​Scenario 2 — Multiple Offenses, All Not Reportable

​Scenario 3 — Dismissed Traffic Charges, Low Identity

​Scenario 4 — Mixed Cases: Reportable + Not Reportable

​Scenario 5 — Reportable with Multiple Convictions

​Scenario 6 — Insufficient Data, Medium Identity

​Scenario 7 — Insufficient Reportability Data

​Error and Edge-Case Scenarios

​Input Validation Errors (HTTP 422)

​cases[] Behavior

​Processing Failures — Court Search ID / Offense ID Count Mismatch (HTTP 500 on /evaluate)

​Authentication Errors (HTTP 401/403)

​Rate Limiting (HTTP 429)

​Identity Match and Routing Impact

​Identity-to-Routing Matrix

​How Identity Score is Calculated

​Common Score Scenarios

​Identity Impact in Our Samples

​Search Type Differences

​Rationale Structure Guide

​Per-Offense Fields

​Building a Case-Level Rationale

​Example — Scenario 4 (Mixed Decisions)

​Queue Rollup Logic

​Precedence (highest wins)

​Rollup Examples from Our Samples

​Field Reference

​Response Envelope

​Decision Fields

​Offense Fields

​Validation Fields

​Decision Flow

​Related

Scenario Summary

Scenario 1 — Single Offense, Not Reportable

Scenario 2 — Multiple Offenses, All Not Reportable

Scenario 3 — Dismissed Traffic Charges, Low Identity

Scenario 4 — Mixed Cases: Reportable + Not Reportable

Scenario 5 — Reportable with Multiple Convictions

Scenario 6 — Insufficient Data, Medium Identity

Scenario 7 — Insufficient Reportability Data

Error and Edge-Case Scenarios

Input Validation Errors (HTTP 422)

`cases[]` Behavior

Processing Failures — Court Search ID / Offense ID Count Mismatch (HTTP 500 on `/evaluate`)

Authentication Errors (HTTP 401/403)

Rate Limiting (HTTP 429)

Identity Match and Routing Impact

Identity-to-Routing Matrix

How Identity Score is Calculated

Common Score Scenarios

Identity Impact in Our Samples

Search Type Differences

Rationale Structure Guide

Per-Offense Fields

Building a Case-Level Rationale

Example — Scenario 4 (Mixed Decisions)

Queue Rollup Logic

Precedence (highest wins)

Rollup Examples from Our Samples

Field Reference

Response Envelope

Decision Fields

Offense Fields

Validation Fields

Decision Flow

Related