📈 Disney keeps politicizing its franchises and keeps flopping

⚖ Why this verdict

fully deterministic — evaluate.py replays this from daily closes; nothing below is editable or hand-set

1. Window: 2024-01-13 → 2025-01-13 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
2. The call: ▼ SHORT DIS (primary play). DIS rose 17.2% over the window → direction-adjusted R = -17.2% (the call lost money).
3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +24.0% → α = -17.2 − (+24.0) = -41.2% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
   Stock-selection read: +6.8% — did DIS move the predicted way relative to the market. The two only differ on a SHORT: this call was right about direction relative to the index but still cost money versus holding it.
4. Rule fired:
   · HIT — R ≥ +10% AND α ≥ +5

   · PARTIAL — R ≥ +5% OR α ≥ 0

   ▶ MISS — everything else
5. Credit: supporters of a MISS earn 0 each, opposers the inverse — this feeds the scoreboard weights. supported: Friedberg, Sacks

each voice's total force on the score — supports and opposes from every mention, weighted exactly as the replay applied them · share = % of all mention-driven movement

Sacks w=0.89

1 scoring event · 75% of moves

+37.2 → net +37.2

Friedberg w=0.87

1 scoring event · 25% of moves

+12.2 → net +12.2

⏳ decay drained -42.7 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one