We challenge the old belief that strong facts guarantee strong verdicts and show why juror psychology now sets case value. We map a path to decision architecture across intake, discovery, narrative design, testing, and voir dire to prevent invisible ceiling compression.

• Three failed assumptions that undermine plaintiff strategy
• Five control variables jurors’ cognitive load, belief mechanics, narrative stability, emotional velocity, internal bias amplification
• System One vs System Two and why gut impressions dominate
• Confirmation bias, the Hannah study, and narrative drift risk
• Med-mal “unlosable” loss as a drift cautionary tale
• Intake, discovery, and narrative as continuous feedback loops
• Invisible ceiling compression and where it begins
• When to test, what to test, and how to simplify
• 18-wheeler case study moving fault from 80% to 20%
• Advanced jury selection with psychographics and SJQs
• Avoiding shortcuts and building venue-specific models
• Redefining a good case through decision architecture

Think about that decision architecture today. Where is your internal consensus setting an invisible ceiling on your most important cases right now? That’s the question you need to test.

Send us a text

https://scienceofjustice.com/