auto-fix: strip 17 broken wiki links

Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.

inbox/queue/2026-04-15-clearygottlieb-company-specific-event-contracts-sec-cftc-jurisdiction.md

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ This is a GENUINELY NEW REGULATORY VECTOR not in the TWAP endogeneity claim's sc
 **What I expected but didn't find:** No mention of governance markets, futarchy, or MetaDAO specifically. The analysis is framed around traditional corporate event contracts (earnings announcements, M&A outcomes, CEO changes) rather than DAO governance decisions. But the structural parallel is exact.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement is endogenous]] — THE PRIMARY CONNECTION. This source adds a NEW scope qualification: even if the endogeneity argument resolves CFTC classification, the SEC's security-based swap jurisdiction over company-specific event contracts may reach MetaDAO's conditional markets through a different theory.
+- MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement is endogenous — THE PRIMARY CONNECTION. This source adds a NEW scope qualification: even if the endogeneity argument resolves CFTC classification, the SEC's security-based swap jurisdiction over company-specific event contracts may reach MetaDAO's conditional markets through a different theory.
 - [[AI autonomously managing investment capital is regulatory terra incognita because the SEC framework assumes human-controlled registered entities deploy AI as tools]] — the "security-based swap" track adds a new SEC-specific exposure vector alongside the existing AI-manager regulatory gap
 
 **Extraction hints:**
@@ -55,6 +55,6 @@ This is a GENUINELY NEW REGULATORY VECTOR not in the TWAP endogeneity claim's sc
 **Context:** Cleary Gottlieb is a top-tier global law firm with significant derivatives regulatory practice. This is authoritative secondary analysis from a practitioner with jurisdiction to speak on SEC/CFTC boundary law. Date approximate — article references March 2026 MOU.
 
 ## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — adds a new SEC security-based swap track that the endogeneity argument doesn't address
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — adds a new SEC security-based swap track that the endogeneity argument doesn't address
 WHY ARCHIVED: Company-specific event contracts / SEC jurisdiction gap is the most important new regulatory finding in 38 sessions — changes the analytical scope of the TWAP endogeneity claim
 EXTRACTION HINT: The extractor should update the TWAP endogeneity claim's scope qualifications to add the SEC security-based swap track. This is a gap in the existing claim, not a new standalone claim.

inbox/queue/2026-04-24-cftc-sues-new-york-five-states-prediction-market-offensive.md

@@ -38,8 +38,8 @@ This is the fourth (possibly fifth) state the CFTC has sued: Arizona, Connecticu
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any CFTC mention of non-DCM operators (like MetaDAO, Futardio) or governance markets. The CFTC is defending its registrants; non-registrants are explicitly NOT covered.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — the CFTC's offensive suits CONFIRM that CFTC protection is registration-gated. MetaDAO's regulatory position as a non-DCM means it cannot benefit from CFTC's declaratory suits. The endogeneity argument (falling outside event contract definition entirely) remains MetaDAO's ONLY protective structure.
+- MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — the CFTC's offensive suits CONFIRM that CFTC protection is registration-gated. MetaDAO's regulatory position as a non-DCM means it cannot benefit from CFTC's declaratory suits. The endogeneity argument (falling outside event contract definition entirely) remains MetaDAO's ONLY protective structure.
-- [[futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort the Howey test requires]] — not directly affected, but the overall regulatory environment is tightening
+- futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort the Howey test requires — not directly affected, but the overall regulatory environment is tightening
 
 **Extraction hints:**
 - New claim: "CFTC's shift to offensive declaratory suits against states (April 2026) creates a two-tier prediction market regulatory system: CFTC-registered DCMs gain federal protection; non-DCM operators have no standing to benefit" — confidence: likely
@@ -48,6 +48,6 @@ This is the fourth (possibly fifth) state the CFTC has sued: Arizona, Connecticu
 **Context:** CFTC press release confirmed at cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9218-26. CoinDesk is a reliable crypto-native news source for regulatory developments.
 
 ## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — CFTC's offensive posture exclusively benefits DCM registrants, confirming the two-tier protection gap
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — CFTC's offensive posture exclusively benefits DCM registrants, confirming the two-tier protection gap
 WHY ARCHIVED: Structural shift in federal-state regulatory battle — CFTC now actively suing states, not just filing amicus briefs
 EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the two-tier nature of CFTC protection (DCM vs. non-DCM). MetaDAO's position as a non-DCM is newly clarified by who CFTC is and isn't defending.

inbox/queue/2026-04-27-38-state-ag-amicus-fourth-circuit-maryland.md

@@ -38,6 +38,6 @@ intake_tier: research-task
 **Extraction hints:** Not a standalone claim — an update to the governance market gap tracking. Cite as "38-state AG coalition filing focuses exclusively on sports event contracts, confirming governance markets are structurally invisible at the broadest level of anti-prediction-market regulatory coalition."
 
 ## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — governance market gap confirmed at 38-state AG coalition level
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — governance market gap confirmed at 38-state AG coalition level
 WHY ARCHIVED: Broadest confirmation yet of the governance market structural invisibility pattern
 EXTRACTION HINT: Use as gap evidence in the TWAP endogeneity claim update — the 38-state coalition's exclusive focus on sports is the most comprehensive data point for the gap claim.

inbox/queue/2026-04-30-mccormick-gillibrand-prediction-market-act-2026.md

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Pred
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any public mention of governance markets, futarchy, MetaDAO, or decision markets in the bill's stated scope. The bill's framing centers entirely on sports, elections, and climate.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement is endogenous]] — this bill's statutory definition would be the NEW analytical target for the endogeneity argument if enacted. "Occurrence or non-occurrence of a future event" is the key phrase.
+- MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement is endogenous — this bill's statutory definition would be the NEW analytical target for the endogeneity argument if enacted. "Occurrence or non-occurrence of a future event" is the key phrase.
 - [[the DAO Reports rejection of voting as active management is the central legal hurdle for futarchy because prediction market trading must prove fundamentally more meaningful than token voting]] — congressional focus on insider trading and consumer protection (not governance quality) is a different regulatory frame than either the Howey test or event contract gaming analysis
 
 **Extraction hints:**
@@ -51,6 +51,6 @@ Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Pred
 **Context:** Semafor reporting confirmed; bill text PDF exists but was access-restricted during research session.
 
 ## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — the bill's definition language is the new test for the endogeneity argument
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — the bill's definition language is the new test for the endogeneity argument
 WHY ARCHIVED: First-ever proposed statutory definition of "event contract" — changes the analytical framework Rio has been building for 38 sessions
 EXTRACTION HINT: The bill text PDF should be retrieved before extraction — it contains the actual statutory language. The "occurrence or non-occurrence of a future event" phrase is the key analytical target.

inbox/queue/2026-04-xx-maryland-swaps-preemption-dodd-frank-exclusion.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ The Maryland argument STRENGTHENS the case that the "swaps" classification is do
 **What I expected but didn't find:** No governance market, futarchy, or MetaDAO mentions.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — Maryland's argument adds Dodd-Frank legislative history as confirmation that the "swaps" path is double-edged. Must add this to the claim's update.
+- MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — Maryland's argument adds Dodd-Frank legislative history as confirmation that the "swaps" path is double-edged. Must add this to the claim's update.
 - Sessions 35-36: "swaps classification = double-edged for non-DCM MetaDAO." This source provides the statutory basis for that conclusion.
 
 **Extraction hints:**
@@ -52,6 +52,6 @@ The Maryland argument STRENGTHENS the case that the "swaps" classification is do
 - The statutory history is clean and should be stated explicitly in the claim update.
 
 ## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — confirms the "swaps double-edge" with explicit statutory history from Dodd-Frank
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — confirms the "swaps double-edge" with explicit statutory history from Dodd-Frank
 WHY ARCHIVED: Maryland's statutory argument is the clearest sourcing for the Session 35-36 correction about swaps being double-edged for non-DCM MetaDAO
 EXTRACTION HINT: This should be the cited source for the TWAP endogeneity claim update about Dodd-Frank explicitly excluding swaps from state preemption.

inbox/queue/2026-05-05-lowenstein-fintech-five-cftc-ny-prediction-market-act-sec-binary.md

@@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ Five major fintech developments, May 5, 2026:
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any mention of governance markets, futarchy, MetaDAO, or non-sports/non-election event contracts. The congressional bills' scope (whether they capture governance markets) is unknown from this summary.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement is endogenous]] — neither CFTC suits nor congressional bills mention governance markets
+- MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement is endogenous — neither CFTC suits nor congressional bills mention governance markets
-- [[futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort the Howey test requires]] — regulatory pressure intensifying on DCM-licensed operators; MetaDAO's non-DCM status makes it invisible in all five CFTC suits
+- futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort the Howey test requires — regulatory pressure intensifying on DCM-licensed operators; MetaDAO's non-DCM status makes it invisible in all five CFTC suits
-- [[Living Capital vehicles pair Living Agent domain expertise with futarchy-governed investment]] — NYSE tokenization pilot directly relevant to vehicle structure
+- Living Capital vehicles pair Living Agent domain expertise with futarchy-governed investment — NYSE tokenization pilot directly relevant to vehicle structure
 
 **Extraction hints:**
 - New claim: "CFTC has shifted from defensive to offensive posture against states, filing five declaratory relief suits as of May 2026" — confidence: likely
@@ -51,6 +51,6 @@ Five major fintech developments, May 5, 2026:
 **Context:** Lowenstein Sandler's FinTech Five is a weekly regulatory digest from a major financial services law firm. This is a reliable secondary source covering actual legal developments.
 
 ## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — both the CFTC suits and the Prediction Market Act proceed without mentioning governance markets, confirming the structural invisibility pattern
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — both the CFTC suits and the Prediction Market Act proceed without mentioning governance markets, confirming the structural invisibility pattern
 WHY ARCHIVED: Multi-finding week — CFTC offensive escalation + congressional bill + SEC binary options approval + NYSE tokenization
 EXTRACTION HINT: Three extraction tracks: (1) CFTC offensive suits as signal of regulatory escalation favoring DCMs, not non-DCM operators; (2) Prediction Market Act legislative resolution path and its unknown scope for governance markets; (3) NYSE tokenization as Living Capital vehicle relevance

inbox/queue/2026-05-06-fourth-circuit-may7-kalshi-maryland-oral-argument-preview.md

@@ -66,14 +66,14 @@ intake_tier: research-task
 3. No analyst estimate on Fourth Circuit ruling direction — most analysts focus on the Third/Ninth/SJC triangle.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — Primary. The CFTC's broad "3,000 contracts" amicus framing creates new pressure on endogeneity defense.
+- MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — Primary. The CFTC's broad "3,000 contracts" amicus framing creates new pressure on endogeneity defense.
-- [[futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort the Howey test requires]] — cascade notification this session; claim was modified. This source context is relevant to understanding what regulatory pressure is mounting.
+- futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort the Howey test requires — cascade notification this session; claim was modified. This source context is relevant to understanding what regulatory pressure is mounting.
 
 **Extraction hints:**
 - New claim candidate: "CFTC's Fourth Circuit amicus brief's broadened framing ('3,000 event-based contracts covering agricultural, metal, energy, and financial derivatives') implies the swap definition's 'any agreement' language could sweep in MetaDAO conditional markets — narrowing the endogeneity defense's effectiveness against CFTC's own interpretation of its jurisdiction" — confidence: speculative
 - Timeline claim: "Fourth Circuit ruling (KalshiEX v. Martin No. 25-1892) expected July-September 2026; if pro-state, circuit split becomes 2-1 and SCOTUS cert probability rises above 64%"
 
 ## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition]] — CFTC's broad swap definition framing creates new pressure on endogeneity argument
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside CFTC event contract definition — CFTC's broad swap definition framing creates new pressure on endogeneity argument
 WHY ARCHIVED: Critical judicial record — Fourth Circuit case facts, arguments, and circuit split status as of the day of oral argument
 EXTRACTION HINT: Two extraction tracks: (1) Circuit split timeline update; (2) CFTC's "3,000 contracts" broad framing as new pressure on endogeneity defense. The second track is the more analytically significant finding.