Diversity Trace - Legal Sources as Data Step by Step

A diversity example can be modeled as data comparisons without deciding a case. Honesty note: jurisdiction US; the pinned first step states the as-of date; not legal advice; code encodes the stated-rule interpretation.

highlighted = computed this step

Render honesty note

Honesty note: jurisdiction US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; code encodes the stated-rule interpretation for this lesson.

\text{US as of }2026-06-24

The source is a stated interpretation

The example uses 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332(a) only as a source label for a stated classroom interpretation.

\text{source}=28 U.S.C. sec. 1332(a)

Example amount data

The amount fact is 100000. The stated threshold is 75000. The prong tests strict greater-than, so the diagram compares those exact integers.

100000\text{ strictly exceeds }75000

Example state data

The party-state toy facts are TX and OK, displayed inside the compiled trace as data values. The model treats them as a not-equal prong row only.

\text{state labels compare as prong data}

Computed prong rows

The trace has 2 prong rows and 2 condition satisfied rows. This is not a case outcome.

\text{prong rows}=2,\quad \text{condition satisfied rows}=2

Diagram note

The render is only a prong trace. It does not decide jurisdiction or any court result.

\text{prong trace only}

Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-06-24; not legal advice; Code encodes the stated-rule interpretation.