diff --git a/inbox/archive/2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state.md b/inbox/archive/2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state.md
index b8a28932..a560331c 100644
--- a/inbox/archive/2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state.md
+++ b/inbox/archive/2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state.md
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
 **Why this matters:** The circuit split is the clearest signal this reaches SCOTUS. The outcome will determine whether prediction markets (and by extension futarchy governance markets) operate under a single federal framework or 50-state patchwork.
 **What surprised me:** The Tennessee ruling's broad interpretation — even a 3-hour football game qualifies as an "event" under CEA. This expansive reading, if upheld, would clearly encompass futarchy governance proposals.
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Analysis of how this specifically applies to non-sports prediction markets like futarchy governance markets. All litigation focuses on sports contracts. Governance markets may not trigger state gaming commission attention in the same way.
-**KB connections:** [[Optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles]] — regulatory classification may end up being the binding constraint on mechanism choice, not manipulation risk.
+**KB connections:** Optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles — regulatory classification may end up being the binding constraint on mechanism choice, not manipulation risk.
 **Extraction hints:** Claim about circuit split and Supreme Court path. Distinction between sports and governance prediction markets.
 **Context:** Multiple law firms (Holland & Knight, Epstein Becker Green, Sidley Austin, Stinson) published analysis in Feb 2026 — this is generating significant legal attention.