The Record: WTF

The corpus queued on Jun 16, 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 16, 2026 · tx sha2…6153

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: 0edc342707a4e29f267e5cef0071444c4d3cae1137fda996c7fdcbd8c0486153
transcript_hash: 0edc342707a4e29f267e5cef0071444c4d3cae1137fda996c7fdcbd8c0486153
content_uri: sha256://0edc342707a4e29f267e5cef0071444c4d3cae1137fda996c7fdcbd8c0486153

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 are both 'WTF', which provides no meaningful or evaluable claim.

Neither YES nor NO arguments were submitted, leaving no evidence to support a YES resolution.

In the absence of any supporting arguments or a coherent resolution criteria, the default lean is NO.

Maximum uncertainty applies; confidence is set to 0.5 reflecting a coin-flip scenario.

'WTF', which provides no meaningful or evaluable claim.", "Neither YES nor NO arguments were submitted to support any position.", "With no substantive question, no resolution criteria, and no arguments, there is no basis to resolve YES. A default NO verdict is returned at minimum confidence."], "decisive_argument_ids": []}

The question and resolution criteria are both 'WTF', which provides no meaningful or evaluable claim.

Neither YES nor NO arguments were submitted, leaving no evidence to support either side.

With no discernible resolution criteria or supporting arguments, the market cannot resolve YES, so a default NO verdict is issued at minimum confidence.

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