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 15, 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: 81e522dfbfea6a7575f6164e66326aa55ea2cfda4d08686cae8c0e64bc223833 transcript_hash: 81e522dfbfea6a7575f6164e66326aa55ea2cfda4d08686cae8c0e64bc223833 content_uri: sha256://81e522dfbfea6a7575f6164e66326aa55ea2cfda4d08686cae8c0e64bc223833
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.
Common usage and everyday language treat a hotdog as its own distinct food item, not a sandwich. When people order or discuss food, they categorically distinguish hotdogs from sandwiches. Food taxonomy in most culinary traditions, restaurant menus, and grocery stores places hotdogs in their own category (e.g., 'frankfurters,' 'hotdogs') separate from sandwiches. Structurally, a hotdog bun is a single piece of bread with a hinge — it does not fully enclose or separate into two independent slices like a classic sandwich. This structural distinction supports treating it as a separate category: A hotdog bun is typically hinged and not fully separated many food classification bodies distinguish between 'sandwich-type' items and hotdog/frankfurter products. While a broad technical definition of 'sandwich' (filling between bread) could include a hotdog, the resolution criteria specifically invoke ordinary food definitionally described as hotdogs, not sandwiches, in grocery stores, menus, regulatory filings (e.g., USDA/FDA classify frankfurters separately from sandwiches), and everyday conversation. No YES arguments were submitted to challenge the default classification derived from common usage and food taxonomy.
.", "Food taxonomy: While a broad technical definition of 'sandwich' (filling between bread) could encompass a hotdog, most culinary and food-industry taxonomies list hotdogs as a distinct category alongside sandwiches rather than within them.", "Structural distinction: A hotdog bun is typically a hinged, partially-split roll rather than two separate slices of bread. This unique structural form — a single connected piece of bread — distinguishes it from the archetypal sandwich construction.", "Cultural identity: The hotdog has a strong, independent cultural identity rooted in ballparks, street carts, and American tradition. Its preparation, condiment conventions, and serving context are markedly different from sandwiches, reinforcing its status as its own food category.", "Ordinary description: When people describe what they are eating, they say 'I'm having a hotdog,' not 'I'm having a sausage sandwich,' further supporting the resolution that a hotdog is not ordinarily treated as a sandwich under common usage."], "decisive_argument_ids": []}
Common usage: In everyday language, people overwhelmingly refer to hotdogs as 'hotdogs,' not sandwiches. The term 'sandwich' is rarely if ever applied to a hotdog in casual or culinary conversation. Food taxonomy: Major culinary institutions and food guides treat hotdogs as a distinct category. For example, the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council has explicitly stated that a hotdog is not a sandwich. Structural distinction: A traditional sandwich uses two separate, fully discrete bread slices. A hotdog bun is typically a single piece of bread with a hinge — a partial split rather than two independent pieces — making it structurally distinct from a sandwich. Cultural and categorical identity: Hotdogs have their own deeply entrenched cultural identity as a standalone food category. They are sold, marketed, and categorized separately from sandwiches in restaurants, grocery stores, and food competitions. Ordinary description: The resolution criteria explicitly calls for 'ordinary food definition' and 'how the item is normally described.' By both of these measures, hotdogs are not normally described as sandwiches by the general public or food industry.
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: NO. Confidence: 1.
payouts unlocked · tx 81e5…3833
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6