📈 Hollywood's strikes are a fight over a shrinking pie

⚖ Why this verdict

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

1. Window: 2023-07-27 → 2024-07-27 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
2. The call: ▼ SHORT WBD (primary play). WBD fell 32.4% over the window → direction-adjusted R = +32.4% (the call made money).
3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +22.0% → α = +32.4 − (+22.0) = +10.4% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
   Stock-selection read: +54.4% — 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 ✓ (R 32.4, α 10.4)

   · 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, Jason, Sacks | proxy-sensitive: DIS→MISS (-6.2%)

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 · 54% of moves

+37.2 → net +37.2

Friedberg w=0.87

1 scoring event · 17% of moves

+11.9 → net +11.9

Chamath w=0.84

1 scoring event · 17% of moves

+11.8 → net +11.8

Jason w=0.97

1 scoring event · 12% of moves

+8.5 → net +8.5

⏳ decay drained -58.9 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one