diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/cftc-dcm-preemption-scope-excludes-unregistered-platforms.md b/domains/internet-finance/cftc-dcm-preemption-scope-excludes-unregistered-platforms.md
index 8fbc3f8a8..4c52be076 100644
--- a/domains/internet-finance/cftc-dcm-preemption-scope-excludes-unregistered-platforms.md
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/cftc-dcm-preemption-scope-excludes-unregistered-platforms.md
@@ -143,3 +143,10 @@ Fourth Circuit oral argument featured Judge Gregory's 'basically gambling' chara
 **Source:** InGame Fourth Circuit oral argument coverage, May 8 2026
 
 Fourth Circuit panel showed genuine openness to field preemption arguments despite expressing concerns about sports contracts being gambling-like. Judge Gregory stated 'It seems like the whole point is that they wanted it to be a field preemption' and predicted 'this will probably end up with the Supreme Court.' This contrasts with the expected pro-state outcome and suggests field preemption doctrine may be more robust than conflict preemption analysis across circuits.
+
+
+## Supporting Evidence
+
+**Source:** Third Circuit KalshiEX v. Flaherty (2026-04-06)
+
+Third Circuit field preemption analysis explicitly depends on DCM-listed status, with the court stating preemption applies specifically to 'regulation of trading on a DCM.' This provides circuit court authority for the two-tier regulatory architecture where DCM registration is the prerequisite for preemption protection.
diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/metadao-twap-settlement-excludes-event-contract-definition-through-endogenous-price-mechanism.md b/domains/internet-finance/metadao-twap-settlement-excludes-event-contract-definition-through-endogenous-price-mechanism.md
index 10bfa374c..88cdf3412 100644
--- a/domains/internet-finance/metadao-twap-settlement-excludes-event-contract-definition-through-endogenous-price-mechanism.md
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/metadao-twap-settlement-excludes-event-contract-definition-through-endogenous-price-mechanism.md
@@ -209,3 +209,10 @@ Norton Rose's comprehensive synthesis covering CFTC preemption framework, enforc
 **Source:** Fourth Circuit oral argument, Judge Benjamin Rule 40.11 questions
 
 Judge Benjamin's questioning about Rule 40.11 and gaming classification confirms that DCM-listing requirement is load-bearing for CEA gaming analysis. The panel's focus on whether contracts are listed on registered exchanges as the jurisdictional trigger reinforces that non-DCM markets like MetaDAO remain structurally outside the gaming enforcement framework.
+
+
+## Supporting Evidence
+
+**Source:** Third Circuit KalshiEX v. Flaherty (2026-04-06)
+
+Third Circuit explicitly scopes field preemption to 'regulation of trading on a DCM,' with multiple law firm analyses confirming the DCM-scope limitation. This is the first circuit court authority establishing that DCM registration is the regulatory dividing line for prediction market preemption, providing appellate-level support for the argument that non-DCM markets are outside the enforcement zone.
diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/prediction-market-act-2026-dcm-sef-scope-limitation-excludes-decentralized-governance-markets.md b/domains/internet-finance/prediction-market-act-2026-dcm-sef-scope-limitation-excludes-decentralized-governance-markets.md
index ad4c5ae6c..76e052901 100644
--- a/domains/internet-finance/prediction-market-act-2026-dcm-sef-scope-limitation-excludes-decentralized-governance-markets.md
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/prediction-market-act-2026-dcm-sef-scope-limitation-excludes-decentralized-governance-markets.md
@@ -18,3 +18,10 @@ related: ["metadao-twap-settlement-excludes-event-contract-definition-through-en
 # The Prediction Market Act of 2026's event contract definition structurally excludes decentralized governance markets through DCM/SEF listing requirement
 
 The Prediction Market Act of 2026 defines 'event contract' as a contract 'listed by a designated contract market or swap execution facility.' This is a structural scope limitation, not a functional test. MetaDAO's conditional governance markets operate on decentralized infrastructure without DCM or SEF registration, placing them outside the Act's definitional reach. This creates a parallel defense to the TWAP endogeneity argument: even if MetaDAO's markets were considered to predict 'external' events, they would still fall outside the Act's scope because they are not DCM/SEF-listed. The protection is structural but fragile—if future amendments or rulemaking expand scope to 'any platform' or create a new registration category for decentralized venues, this safe harbor disappears. The bill's competing alternative (Curtis-Schiff Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act) would prohibit sports/casino contracts on CFTC platforms entirely, showing fundamental legislative disagreement on prediction market philosophy.
+
+
+## Supporting Evidence
+
+**Source:** Third Circuit KalshiEX v. Flaherty (2026-04-06)
+
+Third Circuit ruling independently converges on DCM registration as the regulatory boundary for prediction market preemption, matching the Prediction Market Act's DCM/SEF scope limitation. Two independent legal sources (judicial and legislative) now agree that DCM listing is load-bearing for regulatory coverage.
diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/third-circuit-dcm-field-preemption-scope-excludes-non-dcm-markets-through-explicit-trading-on-dcm-limitation.md b/domains/internet-finance/third-circuit-dcm-field-preemption-scope-excludes-non-dcm-markets-through-explicit-trading-on-dcm-limitation.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..79268b4fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/third-circuit-dcm-field-preemption-scope-excludes-non-dcm-markets-through-explicit-trading-on-dcm-limitation.md
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+type: claim
+domain: internet-finance
+description: The Third Circuit's field preemption analysis depends explicitly on DCM-listed status, creating a regulatory dividing line that excludes non-DCM markets from federal preemption protection
+confidence: likely
+source: Third Circuit Court of Appeals, KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty (2026-04-06)
+created: 2026-05-10
+title: Third Circuit field preemption in KalshiEX v. Flaherty is explicitly scoped to DCM-listed contracts, structurally excluding non-DCM governance markets from both the enforcement zone and the preemption shield
+agent: rio
+sourced_from: internet-finance/2026-04-06-skadden-third-circuit-kalshi-flaherty-preemption-ruling.md
+scope: structural
+sourcer: Third Circuit Court of Appeals
+supports: ["metadao-twap-settlement-excludes-event-contract-definition-through-endogenous-price-mechanism", "cftc-dcm-preemption-scope-excludes-unregistered-platforms", "prediction-market-act-2026-dcm-sef-scope-limitation-excludes-decentralized-governance-markets"]
+related: ["metadao-twap-settlement-excludes-event-contract-definition-through-endogenous-price-mechanism", "cftc-dcm-preemption-scope-excludes-unregistered-platforms", "cftc-anprm-scope-excludes-governance-markets-through-dcm-external-event-framing", "third-circuit-dcm-preemption-requires-federal-registration-creating-jurisdictional-prerequisite-not-universal-protection", "third-circuit-dcm-field-preemption-excludes-decentralized-protocols-through-narrow-scope-definition", "dcm-field-preemption-protects-all-contracts-on-registered-platforms-regardless-of-type", "cftc-licensed-dcm-preemption-protects-centralized-prediction-markets-but-not-decentralized-governance-markets"]
+---
+
+# Third Circuit field preemption in KalshiEX v. Flaherty is explicitly scoped to DCM-listed contracts, structurally excluding non-DCM governance markets from both the enforcement zone and the preemption shield
+
+The Third Circuit's preliminary injunction ruling in KalshiEX v. Flaherty establishes field preemption on two grounds: (1) the CEA grants exclusive CFTC jurisdiction over swaps traded or executed on a DCM, and (2) allowing state prohibition would undermine federal elimination of regulatory patchwork. Critically, the court's field preemption analysis is explicitly scoped to 'regulation of trading on a DCM.' The opinion states the preemption analysis applies specifically to DCM-listed status, making DCM registration the load-bearing element for federal preemption. This creates a clear regulatory boundary: DCM-listed markets receive preemption protection against state gambling laws, while non-DCM markets remain outside both the enforcement target zone and the preemption shield. Multiple law firm analyses (Prokopiev, Holland & Knight, Vinson & Elkins, Past The Wire) published after the ruling confirm this DCM-scope limitation. This is the first circuit court ruling fully adjudicating the Kalshi preemption question, providing appellate-level authority on the scope question. The ruling is a preliminary injunction (reasonable chance of winning standard), not final merits, and the case returns to district court for full adjudication. However, the scope limitation is explicit in the legal reasoning, not dicta.
diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/third-circuit-ruling-creates-first-federal-appellate-precedent-for-cftc-preemption-of-state-gambling-laws.md b/domains/internet-finance/third-circuit-ruling-creates-first-federal-appellate-precedent-for-cftc-preemption-of-state-gambling-laws.md
index 1c709f8b2..eb981baca 100644
--- a/domains/internet-finance/third-circuit-ruling-creates-first-federal-appellate-precedent-for-cftc-preemption-of-state-gambling-laws.md
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/third-circuit-ruling-creates-first-federal-appellate-precedent-for-cftc-preemption-of-state-gambling-laws.md
@@ -115,3 +115,10 @@ Maryland district court (August 2025) ruled against Kalshi using 'compliance coe
 **Source:** Fortune, April 20, 2026
 
 Fortune mainstream business press coverage frames the Third Circuit April 6 ruling as the first step in a SCOTUS trajectory, signaling that prediction market regulation has crossed from crypto niche to top-tier regulatory issue receiving same treatment as CFTC/SEC crypto battles in 2022-2023. Polymarket pricing SCOTUS cert at 39% by year-end 2026 provides market-implied probability anchor.
+
+
+## Extending Evidence
+
+**Source:** Third Circuit KalshiEX v. Flaherty (2026-04-06)
+
+The Third Circuit's field preemption holding is explicitly scoped to DCM-listed contracts through the 'regulation of trading on a DCM' limitation, meaning the precedent's reach is narrower than a broad field preemption ruling would suggest. Non-DCM markets cannot claim this preemption shield.
diff --git a/inbox/queue/2026-04-06-skadden-third-circuit-kalshi-flaherty-preemption-ruling.md b/inbox/archive/internet-finance/2026-04-06-skadden-third-circuit-kalshi-flaherty-preemption-ruling.md
similarity index 97%
rename from inbox/queue/2026-04-06-skadden-third-circuit-kalshi-flaherty-preemption-ruling.md
rename to inbox/archive/internet-finance/2026-04-06-skadden-third-circuit-kalshi-flaherty-preemption-ruling.md
index 2ec3be9f2..999945cfe 100644
--- a/inbox/queue/2026-04-06-skadden-third-circuit-kalshi-flaherty-preemption-ruling.md
+++ b/inbox/archive/internet-finance/2026-04-06-skadden-third-circuit-kalshi-flaherty-preemption-ruling.md
@@ -7,10 +7,13 @@ date: 2026-04-06
 domain: internet-finance
 secondary_domains: []
 format: legal-analysis
-status: unprocessed
+status: processed
+processed_by: rio
+processed_date: 2026-05-10
 priority: high
 tags: [prediction-markets, cftc, preemption, kalshi, third-circuit, event-contracts, dcm, securities-regulation]
 intake_tier: research-task
+extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
 ---
 
 ## Content