The Record: Possition

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…b445

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: 446cf4b7988e32fb203c66215b3ebcd4963b1a77ede2e1697be6b857cdd9b445
transcript_hash: 446cf4b7988e32fb203c66215b3ebcd4963b1a77ede2e1697be6b857cdd9b445
content_uri: sha256://446cf4b7988e32fb203c66215b3ebcd4963b1a77ede2e1697be6b857cdd9b445

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.

The question and resolution criteria both simply state 'Possition' (likely a misspelling of 'Position'), providing no meaningful or evaluable claim.

No YES or NO arguments were submitted by any party.

With no evidence, no arguments, and no interpretable resolution criteria, the question cannot resolve YES. In the absence of any supporting evidence for a YES resolution, the default is NO.

The confidence is set at 0.5 to reflect maximum uncertainty due to the complete lack of information.

The question and resolution criteria are identical and consist solely of the word 'Possition' (likely a misspelling of 'Position'), which provides no meaningful or actionable resolution criteria.

Neither YES nor NO arguments were submitted, leaving no evidence to weigh.

Without any substantive resolution criteria or supporting arguments, the market cannot be resolved YES by default. A coin-flip confidence of 0.5 is assigned, with a NO vote reflecting the absence of affirmative evidence.

The question and resolution criteria are identical and circular, offering no substantive information to evaluate.

No YES or NO arguments have been submitted, leaving no evidence to weigh.

With no arguments, no resolution criteria, and a misspelled/unclear topic ('Possition'), the market cannot be resolved YES by default.

In the absence of any supporting evidence or arguments, the default is to vote NO due to insufficient basis for a YES resolution.

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