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: 6ba7d2252c99afcba3cc063c502ad1f94ec631bb4ecef3151b66b9eec7e8c9ad transcript_hash: 6ba7d2252c99afcba3cc063c502ad1f94ec631bb4ecef3151b66b9eec7e8c9ad content_uri: sha256://6ba7d2252c99afcba3cc063c502ad1f94ec631bb4ecef3151b66b9eec7e8c9ad
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.
In common everyday usage, the word 'sandwich' conjures a filling placed between two separate slices of bread, not a hinged or split roll. A hotdog bun is typically a single piece of bread folded or partially split at the top, which differs structurally from the classic two-slice sandwich format. Food taxonomy and culinary tradition treat hotdogs as their own category — 'frankfurter-in-a-bun' or simply 'hotdog' — distinct from sandwiches. Major food classification systems (e.g., USDA, restaurant menus, dictionaries) list hotdogs separately from sandwiches. Ordinary language usage strongly supports separation: people say 'I had a hotdog AND a sandwich,' implying they are different items. Nobody typically orders a hotdog at a sandwich shop, nor does a sandwich shop menu list hotdogs under sandwiches. While some legal and academic definitions (e.g., the 2006 Panera Bread court case, the Merriam-Webster broad definition) could technically encompass a hotdog as a sandwich, these edge-case definitions do not reflect the ordinary, everyday food understanding called for by the resolution criteria. The resolution criteria explicitly prioritize 'common usage' and 'how the item is normally described,' both of which clearly favor treating a hotdog as a separate food category.
Common usage overwhelmingly treats 'hotdog' as its own distinct food category, separate from sandwiches, in everyday language, restaurant menus, and food retail contexts. While a hotdog technically involves a filling (sausage) placed in a bread roll, the bread is typically hinged and connected at the bottom rather than two fully separate slices, which structurally distinguishes it from the prototypical sandwich. Food taxonomy bodies such as the USDA do classify the hotdog bun as a 'sandwich roll,' but the assembled hotdog product itself is almost universally listed and sold as a hotdog, not a sandwich, on menus, in grocery stores, and in cultural practice. The resolution criteria explicitly favor 'ordinary' and 'common usage' as key factors, and by that standard, virtually no one orders or describes a hotdog as a sandwich in normal speech. The hotdog has a well-established, independent cultural and culinary identity — it is associated with ballparks, street carts, and cookouts as its own food item, not as a subcategory of sandwiches. Applying the 'common usage' and 'how the item is normally described' criteria specified in the resolution, the weight of evidence favors treating the hotdog as a separate food category.
Common usage: In everyday language, people do not call a hotdog a sandwich. It is universally referred to as a 'hotdog,' a distinct food item with its own cultural identity, menu category, and culinary tradition. Food taxonomy: Most food industry classifications, restaurant menus, and retail categories treat hotdogs as a separate category from sandwiches. The USDA and many culinary authorities distinguish hotdogs (as a sausage product in a bun) from sandwiches. Structural argument: While a hotdog does involve a filling between bread, the bun is typically hinged or partially connected rather than two fully separate slices, placing it structurally closer to a sub-roll or hoagie — and even those are debated edge cases rather than paradigmatic sandwiches. Ordinary description: The resolution criteria specifically ask how the item is 'normally described.' Hotdogs are overwhelmingly described as hotdogs, not sandwiches, in common usage, signage, menus, and casual conversation. Separate food category: Hotdogs have their own deeply established cultural and culinary identity — associated with ballparks, grills, and street carts — that places them firmly in a distinct category, regardless of any structural similarity to sandwiches.
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 6ba7…c9ad
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6