diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles.md b/domains/internet-finance/optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles.md
index b0b0ddb3..a93cf628 100644
--- a/domains/internet-finance/optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles.md	
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles.md	
@@ -21,6 +21,12 @@ The interaction between mechanisms creates its own value. Each mechanism generat
 
 Testing proposals that explicitly disable trading represent a third category beyond high-stakes and low-stakes decisions: operational maintenance decisions where market mechanisms provide no value and may create confusion. This suggests optimal governance architectures need non-market pathways for system administration.
 
+
+### Additional Evidence (extend)
+*Source: [[2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state]] | Added: 2026-03-16*
+
+The agent notes explicitly connect this to mechanism choice: 'regulatory classification may end up being the binding constraint on mechanism choice, not manipulation risk.' The circuit split on prediction market jurisdiction means that futarchy governance may face a 50-state patchwork of legal requirements, making regulatory viability rather than manipulation resistance the primary constraint on when futarchy can be deployed.
+
 ---
 
 Relevant Notes:
diff --git a/inbox/archive/.extraction-debug/2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state.json b/inbox/archive/.extraction-debug/2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state.json
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..8bdedfdf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/archive/.extraction-debug/2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state.json
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+{
+  "rejected_claims": [
+    {
+      "filename": "prediction-market-federal-preemption-faces-circuit-split-forcing-supreme-court-resolution.md",
+      "issues": [
+        "missing_attribution_extractor"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "filename": "sports-prediction-markets-trigger-state-gaming-enforcement-while-governance-markets-may-avoid-classification.md",
+      "issues": [
+        "missing_attribution_extractor"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "validation_stats": {
+    "total": 2,
+    "kept": 0,
+    "fixed": 3,
+    "rejected": 2,
+    "fixes_applied": [
+      "prediction-market-federal-preemption-faces-circuit-split-forcing-supreme-court-resolution.md:set_created:2026-03-16",
+      "prediction-market-federal-preemption-faces-circuit-split-forcing-supreme-court-resolution.md:stripped_wiki_link:Polymarket achieved us regulatory legitimacy through qcx acq",
+      "sports-prediction-markets-trigger-state-gaming-enforcement-while-governance-markets-may-avoid-classification.md:set_created:2026-03-16"
+    ],
+    "rejections": [
+      "prediction-market-federal-preemption-faces-circuit-split-forcing-supreme-court-resolution.md:missing_attribution_extractor",
+      "sports-prediction-markets-trigger-state-gaming-enforcement-while-governance-markets-may-avoid-classification.md:missing_attribution_extractor"
+    ]
+  },
+  "model": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5",
+  "date": "2026-03-16"
+}
\ No newline at end of file
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 3995675f..4d25215b 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
@@ -7,9 +7,13 @@ date: 2026-02-00
 domain: internet-finance
 secondary_domains: []
 format: article
-status: unprocessed
+status: enrichment
 priority: high
 tags: [prediction-markets, regulation, kalshi, jurisdiction, supreme-court, cftc, state-gaming]
+processed_by: rio
+processed_date: 2026-03-16
+enrichments_applied: ["optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles.md"]
+extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
 ---
 
 ## Content
@@ -52,3 +56,13 @@ tags: [prediction-markets, regulation, kalshi, jurisdiction, supreme-court, cftc
 PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Polymarket vindicated prediction markets over polling in 2024 US election]]
 WHY ARCHIVED: Circuit split virtually guarantees SCOTUS involvement. The outcome determines futarchy's regulatory viability. Multiple independent legal analyses converge on this assessment.
 EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on circuit split as signal for SCOTUS, and the gap between sports prediction market litigation and governance prediction market implications.
+
+
+## Key Facts
+- Tennessee federal court ruled pro-Kalshi on Feb 19, 2026
+- Nevada state court ruled pro-state on prediction market jurisdiction
+- Massachusetts state court issued preliminary injunction in Jan 2026
+- Maryland federal court ruled CEA preemption doesn't encompass state gambling laws
+- 36 states filed amicus briefs opposing federal preemption in Fourth Circuit
+- CFTC signals imminent rulemaking on prediction markets as of Feb 2026
+- Holland & Knight, Epstein Becker Green, and Sidley Austin all published analysis in Feb 2026