Exercise 2: Why the Repeated 20-Times Pattern Is Stronger Evidence Than the Abstract "Not Legally Binding" Claim — Possible Solution
===========================================================================================================================================

Stating in the abstract that the Sewel Convention "isn't legally
binding" is a real, technically accurate legal claim - but on its own,
it leaves genuinely open the practical question of whether Parliament
would actually, in real practice, act as though it were unconstrained
by the convention, or whether some real political or institutional
pressure would functionally deter Parliament from proceeding without
devolved consent even without a formal legal requirement to seek it.
An unenforced rule can still shape real behavior through custom or
political cost, even without legal force behind it.

The chapter's own real, verified statistic - 20 refused or partially
refused consent motions by February 2022, with Parliament proceeding
regardless every single time - closes exactly that gap between
abstract legal status and actual real-world practice. It's not one
isolated incident that might be explained away as a unique exception;
it's a real, repeated pattern across many separate occasions, showing
that "not legally binding" genuinely translates into "not actually
constraining Parliament's real behavior" in observed practice, not
merely in legal theory.

This distinction matters directly for how confidently the doctrine can
be asserted: a single instance of Parliament proceeding without
consent could plausibly be dismissed as an unusual, exceptional case
driven by unique real circumstances. A real, consistent pattern
repeated 20 separate times removes that possible objection, providing
much stronger real evidence that Parliament's sovereignty over devolved
matters, as Dicey's own doctrine claims, is genuinely being exercised
as an ordinary, standing feature of the system - not something
Parliament merely could do in theory but would rarely or reluctantly
actually use in real practice.

ANSWER: The repeated 20-times pattern is stronger evidence because it
closes the real gap between the abstract legal claim ("not binding")
and actual observed behavior - a single instance could be dismissed as
exceptional, but a real, consistent pattern across 20 separate
occasions shows Parliament genuinely, routinely exercising its own
sovereignty over devolved matters in practice, not merely retaining an
unused theoretical legal power.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This distinguishes the abstract legal-status claim from the real,
empirical behavioral evidence and explains specifically why repetition
across many instances is more persuasive than either the abstract
claim or a single example alone.