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: f24aeab455c43f2ed150e68d41decdb9d724b8995e2f154acefbeae0041a5918 transcript_hash: f24aeab455c43f2ed150e68d41decdb9d724b8995e2f154acefbeae0041a5918 content_uri: sha256://f24aeab455c43f2ed150e68d41decdb9d724b8995e2f154acefbeae0041a5918
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.
Under ordinary culinary and everyday language usage, a hotdog is widely recognized as its own distinct food category rather than a sandwich. Most people, menus, dictionaries, and culinary traditions treat 'hotdog' as a standalone item. While a broad structural definition of 'sandwich' (filling between bread) could technically include a hotdog, ordinary usage does not classify it that way. The hotdog bun is typically a single connected piece of bread hinged at the bottom, which most people intuitively distinguish from a sandwich. Major culinary and linguistic authorities (e.g., Merriam-Webster, the USDA) have at times offered conflicting takes, but the dominant colloquial understanding treats the hotdog as its own category. The resolution criteria specifically asks about 'ordinary culinary and language usage,' which favors the NO outcome, as the vast majority of everyday speakers would not call a hotdog a sandwich without deliberate philosophical provocation.
— reasoning not published for this run; the vote stands on the record —
"While some broad structural definitions of 'sandwich' could technically include a hotdog, these are edge-case philosophical framings rather than reflections of mainstream culinary convention, and no such argument was submitted to support the YES side."], "decisive_argument_ids": []}
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 f24a…5918
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6