In recent years, hierarchical case-based-reasoning models of precedential constraint have been proposed. In various papers, Trevor Bench-Capon criticised these models on the grounds that they would give incorrect outcomes in some cases. In particular, the models would not account for the possibility that intermediate factors are established with different strengths by different base-level factors. In this paper we respond to these criticisms for van Woerkom's result-based hierarchical models. We argue that in some examples Bench-Capon seems to interpret intermediate factors as dimensions, and that applying van Woerkom's dimension-based version of the hierarchical result model to these examples avoids Bench-Capon's criticisms.

翻译：近年来，关于判例约束的层次化案例推理模型被提出。Trevor Bench-Capon 在多篇论文中批评这些模型，认为它们在特定情况下会得出错误结果。具体而言，这些模型未能解释中间因素可能由不同基础因素以不同强度确立的可能性。本文针对 van Woerkom 基于结果的层次化模型回应了这些批评。我们认为，Bench-Capon 在某些示例中将中间因素误解为维度，而将 van Woerkom 基于维度的层次化结果模型应用于这些示例时，可避免 Bench-Capon 的批评。