📈 The health halo on processed 'better-for-you' food is a scam

⚖ Why this verdict

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

1. Window: 2022-08-26 → 2023-08-26 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
2. The call: ▼ SHORT OTLY (primary play). OTLY fell 61.5% over the window → direction-adjusted R = +61.5% (the call made money).
3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +10.3% → α = +61.5 − (+10.3) = +51.2% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
   Stock-selection read: +71.9% — did OTLY 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 ✓ (R 61.5, α 51.2)

   · PARTIAL — R ≥ +5% OR α ≥ 0

   · MISS — everything else
5. Credit: supporters of a HIT earn 1.0 each, opposers the inverse — this feeds the scoreboard weights. supported: Chamath, Friedberg

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

2 scoring events · 55% of moves

+25.5 → net +25.5

Friedberg w=0.87

2 scoring events · 45% of moves

+12.2 / -8.3 → net +3.8

⏳ decay drained -19.2 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one