This paper considersmethodological standards in public law scholarship, showing the perils of current issues with access to relevant data and the promise of what can be achieved using better data and computational methods. It focusses on the effectiveness of Cart challenges – the largest group of claims for judicial review in the High Court – and discusses how the empirical question of the effectiveness of judicial review is linked with the normative question of what counts as ‘success’. The article demonstrates the perils of inattention to data limitations in the analyses of Cart claims by the Independent Review of Administrative Law and by the government and shows the promise of better data and computational methods through an unprecedented empirical study of Upper Tribunal decisions that followed Cart judicial reviews. It concludes that the government's claim that Cart challenges are a disproportionate burden on resources lacks adequate empirical basis.

中文翻译：

---

购物车挑战、实证方法和司法审查的有效性

本文考虑了公法学术中的方法标准，展示了当前获取相关数据问题的危险，以及使用更好的数据和计算方法可以实现的目标。它侧重于Cart挑战的有效性——高等法院司法审查的最大索赔组——并讨论了司法审查有效性的经验问题如何与什么才算“成功”的规范问题联系起来。这篇文章展示了在Cart分析中不注意数据限制的危险行政法独立审查和政府提出的索赔，并通过对Cart司法审查之后的上级法庭裁决进行前所未有的实证研究，显示出更好的数据和计算方法的前景。它的结论是，政府声称Cart挑战对资源造成不成比例的负担缺乏足够的实证依据。