The Record: Am I cool

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.

Model snapshot

claude-sonnet-4-6

Runs × temperature

3 × 0

Seed policy

majority_first_n_valid

Corpus size

7 tokens

Corpus sha256

…

Prompt sha256

35c5b3…1dba68

Committed

Jun 17, 2026 · tx sha2…95b7

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: 683d1240770de140517827e781251aa4b4ae996b5ddafac91f475a62f61e95b7
transcript_hash: 683d1240770de140517827e781251aa4b4ae996b5ddafac91f475a62f61e95b7
content_uri: sha256://683d1240770de140517827e781251aa4b4ae996b5ddafac91f475a62f61e95b7

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 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.

3 independent runs, each in a fresh context, blind to the others — the majority rules.

No arguments were submitted for either side, leaving the question entirely unresolved by evidence.

With no supporting or opposing arguments, the arbiter defaults to maximum uncertainty (50/50).

In the absence of any evidence, a charitable default of YES is applied with minimal confidence.

The resolution criteria ('Am I cool') is entirely subjective and self-referential, making objective adjudication impossible without submitted arguments.

No arguments were submitted for either side, making this question unresolvable on evidentiary grounds.

With zero evidence either way, the arbiter defaults to a charitable 50/50 assessment.

In the absence of any contrary evidence, the benefit of the doubt leans YES — everyone has the potential to be cool.

The confidence is set at the minimum meaningful level (0.5) to reflect complete uncertainty.

No arguments were submitted for either side, making this question entirely unresolved by evidence.

In the absence of any supporting or opposing arguments, the question cannot be adjudicated on its merits.

With no resolution criteria beyond the tautological 'Am I cool,' and no evidence either way, the verdict defaults to a coin-flip. A slight lean toward YES is applied as a charitable default in the absence of contrary evidence.

Coolness is subjective and context-dependent; without any substantive arguments, confidence remains at 0.5.

Cited as decisive

External claims, validated

Factual claims extracted from the briefs and checked against primary sources before deliberation. Unverifiable claims are weighed as rhetoric, not evidence.

This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6