DebateWire
Loading docket
Record
Loading Record
The complete deliberation, published verbatim — the immutable system prompt, the frozen corpus and its injection screen, every blind assessment, all 3 independent runs including the dissent, and the validation behind every citation. Nothing the bench saw or produced is withheld.
Phase 01
The corpus queued on Jun 17, 2026 and its hash was committed on-chain — what follows is provably what the bench read. The protocol ran in four phases: an injection screen over every submission, a blind assessment of each argument, 3 independent deliberation runs with majority rule, then citation and validation. Anyone can re-run this record against the pinned snapshot and compare.
Phase 02
Written and committed at market creation — before a single argument was filed. The operator cannot steer a verdict by editing instructions after the fact; this hash is the one on-chain.
Published prompt text is not present in the transcript chunk payload. record_core_hash: 9ecda872847570e9f3d8cd89e55d5385cb831d98516d4fa03469f175a3ad9f0e transcript_hash: 9ecda872847570e9f3d8cd89e55d5385cb831d98516d4fa03469f175a3ad9f0e content_uri: sha256://9ecda872847570e9f3d8cd89e55d5385cb831d98516d4fa03469f175a3ad9f0e
Phase 03
0 arguments entered the sealed brief — 0 YES, 0 NO. Every submission passed through the injection screen first: argument text is untrusted evidence, never instruction, and submissions that address the bench are excluded from the brief.
Each submission below replays its full audit — the intake, screening, dedup, auditor decision, citation check, and inclusion. For an argument excluded under the integrity policy, only the public reason and rule id are shown; the detection mechanism is never disclosed.
Phase 04
Phase A of the protocol: every argument scored on relevance, evidence, and logic before the bench sees side totals — so volume carries no weight and each argument stands alone.
Phase 05
3 independent runs, each in a fresh context, blind to the others — the majority rules.
The question and resolution criteria are both 'LFG', which is a tautology — the resolution criteria trivially matches the question as stated.
No substantive YES or NO arguments were submitted by either side.
With no evidence or argumentation to evaluate, and a self-referential resolution criteria, the arbiter defaults to a 50/50 confidence split. A YES vote is assigned as the tautological framing ('LFG resolves LFG') nominally favors resolution.
Confidence is set at 0.5 to reflect maximum uncertainty due to the absence of any meaningful content or arguments.the enthusiastic connotation of 'LFG' (Let's F***ing Go), suggesting an affirmative resolution intent."], "decisive_argument_ids": []}
The question and resolution criteria are both stated as 'LFG', which is undefined and provides no verifiable or resolvable claim. No YES or NO arguments were submitted to support either side. Without a meaningful question or any supporting arguments, the market cannot resolve YES. The default in the absence of evidence or a coherent resolution criteria is NO. Confidence is set to 0.5 reflecting maximum uncertainty due to the complete lack of substantive information.
Phase 06
Factual claims extracted from the briefs and checked against primary sources before deliberation. Unverifiable claims are weighed as rhetoric, not evidence.
Phase 07
Winner: YES. Confidence: 0.666666.
payouts unlocked · tx 9ecd…9f0e
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6