📈 Generative video (Veo 3) collapses Hollywood inside a year

⚖ Why this verdict

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

1. Window: 2025-06-21 → 2026-06-21 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
2. The call: ▼ SHORT WBD (primary play). WBD rose 145.3% over the window → direction-adjusted R = -145.3% (the call lost money).
3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +25.8% → α = -145.3 − (+25.8) = -171.1% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
   Stock-selection read: -119.5% — did WBD 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: Chamath | proxy-sensitive: DIS→PARTIAL (+10.8%)

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

Chamath w=0.84

1 scoring event · 100% of moves

+29.3 → net +29.3

⏳ decay drained -24.6 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one