🏛️ Federal research funding retreats from universities

⚖ Why this verdict

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

1. Window: 2025-04-19 → 2026-04-19 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
2. The call: ▼ SHORT TMO (primary play). TMO rose 25.3% over the window → direction-adjusted R = -25.3% (the call lost money).
3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +39.8% → α = -25.3 − (+39.8) = -65.1% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
   Stock-selection read: +14.5% — did TMO 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

Friedberg w=0.84

1 scoring event · 54% of moves

+16.8 → net +16.8

Sacks w=0.97

1 scoring event · 46% of moves

+14.5 → net +14.5

⏳ decay drained -26.0 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one