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: a04eea81e769eddcbe33c50f8328eec4bb510f6ad9ebcfaed58157b0e1cf9940 transcript_hash: a04eea81e769eddcbe33c50f8328eec4bb510f6ad9ebcfaed58157b0e1cf9940 content_uri: sha256://a04eea81e769eddcbe33c50f8328eec4bb510f6ad9ebcfaed58157b0e1cf9940
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: In everyday language, people do not refer to a hotdog as a sandwich. The word 'sandwich' conjures a distinct mental category, and 'hotdog' is universally treated as its own food item. Food taxonomy: Major food industry bodies (e.g., the USDA and most restaurant/menu classification systems) categorize hotdogs separately from sandwiches, suggesting an established taxonomic distinction. Structural argument: A classic sandwich is defined by two separate pieces of bread enclosing a filling. A hotdog bun is typically a single piece of bread connected at the bottom (a hinge roll), making it structurally closer to a taco or sub-roll format than a traditional two-piece sandwich. Cultural and linguistic norms: When people order or discuss food, 'hotdog' and 'sandwich' are treated as mutually exclusive categories in restaurants, ballparks, grocery stores, and menus. This ordinary usage strongly supports treating hotdogs as a separate category. Resolution criteria alignment: The resolution criteria specifically ask about 'ordinary food definition' and 'how the item is normally described.' By both measures, a hotdog is normally described as a hotdog, not a sandwich.
Common usage: In everyday language, a hotdog is almost universally referred to as a 'hotdog,' not a sandwich. Ordinary speakers do not call it a sandwich, which is strong evidence under the resolution criteria. Food taxonomy: Major food industry bodies and menus categorize hotdogs separately from sandwiches. The USDA, for instance, classifies hotdogs and sandwiches in different product categories. Structural distinction: A hotdog bun is typically a single connected piece of bread (hinged), rather than two separate pieces of bread enclosing a filling — the most common structural definition of a sandwich. This makes the hotdog structurally distinct from a prototypical sandwich. Cultural and culinary identity: A hotdog has its own distinct cultural identity, preparation tradition, and serving context that separates it from the broader sandwich category in practice. While philosophical or technical arguments can place hotdogs under a broad sandwich definition (protein between bread), the resolution criteria explicitly emphasize ordinary food definition, common usage, and normal description — all of which point to hotdog as its own category.
In common usage and everyday language, a hotdog is not called a sandwich. Most people refer to it distinctly as a 'hotdog,' not a 'hotdog sandwich,' indicating a separate cultural food category. The hotdog bun is a hinged, single-piece bread roll, structurally different from the two separate slices of bread that typify a classic sandwich. This structural distinction supports treating it as its own category. Food taxonomy and industry classification (e.g., USDA, restaurant menus, grocery stores) consistently categorize hotdogs separately from sandwiches, reinforcing the idea that ordinary food definition treats them as distinct. While a broad technical definition of 'sandwich' (filling between bread) could encompass a hotdog, the resolution criteria explicitly weight ordinary food definition and common usage, both of which favor the hotdog as its own food category. Cultural and culinary tradition treats the hotdog as a standalone iconic food, further separating it from the sandwich category in practical, everyday understanding.
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 a04e…9940
Redeem on the market page →This record is final and content-addressed. corpus … · prompt 35c5b3…1dba68 · model claude-sonnet-4-6