Company Litigation Coverage Dossier：區分無案件搜尋與未量度搜尋

I maintain this Actor. This is an AI-assisted technical walkthrough, fact-checked against its accepted source contract and saved acceptance evidence.

A search table with no case rows can mean several things: a successful empty search, a failed request, a partial jurisdiction response, or a missing field. If all four become “no litigation,” the clean-looking export loses the information an analyst needs most.

The Company Litigation Coverage Dossier combines supplied observations for an explicit corporate search query. It produces a coverage dossier with cases, jurisdiction information, contradictions, and evidence. It does not perform a new court search, verify corporate identity, or assign a legal risk score. Its purpose is to make a bounded source review inspectable before another system consumes it.

Preserve the literal query

The grouping identity is trimmed, case-sensitive company query text. That is a search identity, not a verified legal entity. Two differently written queries do not silently become the same company. A useful integration keeps the exact query next to the dossier and uses its own independently established entity key when linking the result to a customer record.

Case deduplication uses jurisdiction plus an exact source URL, or a court and case number. A title or date alone is too weak to collapse observations. Similar titles can describe different proceedings, while the same case can appear under varying title text. Keep the source identity instead of replacing it with a fuzzy title match.

Coverage is part of the answer

A completed source search with an explicit empty case list can contribute an observed zero. An error or absent case list cannot. That distinction should be visible in your product: “zero cases in the supplied completed search” communicates something different from “this source was not measured.” Neither statement establishes the absence of litigation everywhere.

The saved acceptance example contains litigation_coverage_with_cases, action review_cases, and medium confidence. Useful fields include jurisdictionsCovered, caseCount, cases, conflictedCaseCount, and contradictoryRowCount. Check omission and truncation fields before displaying an apparently exhaustive list. A positive case count does not automatically establish the queried company's role in each case.

Do not turn a mention into a party

A full-text mention remains a mention. It does not imply that a company was a litigant, that an allegation was established, or that an adverse finding occurred. Keep the evidence type in the review interface so that the next reader can distinguish a search hit from party evidence. The Actor intentionally avoids a single legal-risk score that would conceal those differences.

For integration testing, prepare four clearly separated fixtures: an explicit successful empty result, an error, a partial result with cases, and duplicate observations of an exactly identified case. Confirm that the first retains measured-zero coverage, the second retains uncertainty, and the duplicate does not inflate the case count. Compare the output against the source records rather than accepting a green run status as semantic validation. Use the dossier to organize human review; any legal conclusion requires its own qualified process.

Run a small saved snapshot

Start with an existing Dataset you are authorized to read. Replace the Dataset placeholder below with its actual ID. Supported input can also use a source run ID or inline records; choose one explicit source. This Actor does not launch the upstream collection for you.

curl --request POST \
  'https://api.apify.com/v2/acts/zinin~company-litigation-coverage-dossier/runs?maxTotalChargeUsd=0.10' \
  --header "Authorization: Bearer $APIFY_TOKEN" \
  --header 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data '{"datasetId":"REPLACE_WITH_YOUR_DATASET_ID","maxInputRows":100,"maxResults":10}'

The response identifies an asynchronous run. Save that run ID and check its status before reading its default Dataset. A client timeout does not cancel a server run; inspect the existing ID before starting another one. maxInputRows bounds ingestion and maxResults caps useful output. Neither option establishes complete coverage of a larger source. The API charge limit is a ceiling, not a promise that ten results will fit.

Price and evidence limits

On 15 October 2026 the observed FREE-plan price is $0.035 per coverage dossier, with no paid start event for this Actor. Other subscription tiers can have different prices; verify the current Actor page before use. Source collection is a separate activity and may carry its own charges. Free diagnostic rows do not count as paid useful assessments.

The examples discussed here come from saved owner acceptance runs. They show specific observed behavior, rather than customer acceptance, profitability, or an exhaustive guarantee for every input. A new run of identical input can be charged again without adding new source evidence. Retain input provenance, the actual build ID, and the source observation window when comparing results over time.