Can AI do doctrinal legal reasoning, or are current benchmarks measuring the wrong thing?This video summarizes Michèle Finck's article "The Measurement Gap in the Automation of EU Law: Benchmarking Doctrinal Legal Reasoning under the EU AI Act."The central argument is that legal AI evaluation has a measurement gap. Many benchmarks test retrieval, classification, extraction, exam-style answers, or other paralegal-adjacent tasks. But those tests do not show whether a model can perform doctrinal legal reasoning: the interpretive work of synthesizing legal sources, producing a defensible account of what a norm requires, and fitting that account into the wider legal system.Main points covered:- Why doctrinal legal reasoning is different from ordinary legal text generation- Why current legal AI benchmarks miss the core interpretive task- How EU law intensifies doctrinal reasoning through internalism, normativity, contestability, and coherence- Why the EU AI Act's accuracy requirement for high-risk judicial AI creates a legal measurement problem- Why Article 15 makes benchmarking more than a technical question- What failure modes a real EU-law doctrinal reasoning benchmark would need to detectSource:Michèle Finck, "The Measurement Gap in the Automation of EU Law: Benchmarking Doctrinal Legal Reasoning under the EU AI Act" (2026).This content is provided for research and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.#EUAIAct #AILaw #LegalAI #LegalReasoning #LegalTech #LLM #Benchmarking