In this paper we build on a formal model of reasoning with dimensions to analyze data from the COMPAS program—a widely used and studied tool for predicting recidivism. We extend the underlying theory of the model by introducing a notion of consistency and apply it to assess whether COMPAS follows this principle in its risk assessments and supervision level recommendations. Our analysis yields three key findings. First, the program’s risk score assignments appear highly inconsistent, but we argue this is due to important input features missing from the dataset. Second, the program’s recommended supervision levels do exhibit a high degree of consistency. Third, we uncover errors in the dataset related to the conversion of raw scores to decile scores. These findings cast doubts on previous studies conducted on the COMPAS dataset, and demonstrate the need for evaluation studies like ours.