📈 Uber-Expedia super-app cross-sell doesn't pencil

⚖ Why this verdict

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

1. Window: 2024-10-18 → 2025-10-18 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
2. The call: ▼ SHORT EXPE (primary play). EXPE rose 35.4% over the window → direction-adjusted R = -35.4% (the call lost money).
3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +15.0% → α = -35.4 − (+15.0) = -50.5% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
   Stock-selection read: -20.4% — did EXPE 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, Sacks | opposed: Friedberg, Jason

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 · 49% of moves

+37.2 → net +37.2

Chamath w=0.84

1 scoring event · 19% of moves

+14.2 → net +14.2

Friedberg w=0.87

1 scoring event · 17% of moves

+0.0 / -12.5 → net -12.5

Jason w=0.97

1 scoring event · 15% of moves

+0.0 / -11.7 → net -11.7

⏳ decay drained -23.1 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one