📈 The churn treadmill breaks standalone streaming subscriptions

⚖ Why this verdict

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

1. Window: 2024-01-19 → 2025-01-19 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
2. The call: ▼ SHORT WBD (primary play). WBD fell 8.0% over the window → direction-adjusted R = +8.0% (the call made money).
3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +25.5% → α = +8.0 − (+25.5) = -17.4% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
   Stock-selection read: +33.5% — 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 PARTIAL earn 0.5 each, opposers the inverse — this feeds the scoreboard weights. supported: Chamath, Jason, Sacks | proxy-sensitive: PARA→HIT (+98.2%)

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 · 60% of moves

+37.2 → net +37.2

Chamath w=0.84

1 scoring event · 23% of moves

+14.2 → net +14.2

Jason w=0.97

1 scoring event · 17% of moves

+10.6 → net +10.6

⏳ decay drained -53.6 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one