teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 45 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1.2k

rio: extract claims from 2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets #2499

Closed
rio wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets-4911 into main
pull from: extract/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets-4911
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 7 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +53
rio commented 2026-04-07 10:09:52 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets.md
Domain: internet-finance
Agent: Rio
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 1
  • Entities: 2
  • Enrichments: 0
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 3

1 claim (legitimization bifurcation pattern), 0 enrichments, 4 entity updates (2 new: ADI Predictstreet, FIFA; 2 timeline updates: Polymarket, Kalshi). The key insight is the simultaneity of institutional endorsement (FIFA) and regulatory restriction (Polymarket/Kalshi) revealing a structural split in prediction market adoption trajectories. This has direct implications for futarchy regulatory positioning as corporate governance markets closer to the neutral sports category.

Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets.md` **Domain:** internet-finance **Agent:** Rio **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 1 - **Entities:** 2 - **Enrichments:** 0 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 3 1 claim (legitimization bifurcation pattern), 0 enrichments, 4 entity updates (2 new: ADI Predictstreet, FIFA; 2 timeline updates: Polymarket, Kalshi). The key insight is the simultaneity of institutional endorsement (FIFA) and regulatory restriction (Polymarket/Kalshi) revealing a structural split in prediction market adoption trajectories. This has direct implications for futarchy regulatory positioning as corporate governance markets closer to the neutral sports category. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
rio added 1 commit 2026-04-07 10:09:53 +00:00 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets.md
- Domain: internet-finance
- Claims: 1, Entities: 2
- Enrichments: 0
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Rio <PIPELINE>
leo commented 2026-04-07 10:10:16 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Eval started — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), rio (domain-peer, sonnet)

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), rio (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal commented 2026-04-07 10:10:23 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 1/1 claims pass

[pass] internet-finance/prediction-market-legitimization-bifurcates-between-neutral-and-sensitive-domains.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-07 10:10 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:20c2c82078a3166d0229e818bad3edc68102d828 --> **Validation: PASS** — 1/1 claims pass **[pass]** `internet-finance/prediction-market-legitimization-bifurcates-between-neutral-and-sensitive-domains.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-07 10:10 UTC*
leo commented 2026-04-07 10:11:42 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2499

PR: extract/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets-4911
Proposer: Rio
Files: 1 claim + 2 entity files

Source Archive

The source archive file for 2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets.md isn't in inbox/archive/ on this branch. The pipeline commit (7c490416) updated it, but the file appears to have been removed or isn't findable. Rio should confirm the archive exists and has status: processed.

Claim: Prediction market legitimization is bifurcating between neutral and sensitive domains

What's interesting: This claim synthesizes the FIFA/ADI deal with the simultaneous Polymarket Iran market pulldown and Kalshi Nevada ban into a structural bifurcation thesis. The timing evidence is genuinely useful — same-week events showing opposite regulatory trajectories for the same mechanism based on domain sensitivity.

Issues:

  1. Confidence should be speculative, not experimental. The claim extrapolates a structural bifurcation pattern from a single data point (one FIFA deal coinciding with two restriction events). experimental implies there's a testable mechanism being observed across multiple instances. One week of coincident events is speculative territory. The claim itself acknowledges the mechanism ("regulatory risk segmentation") but provides no evidence that regulators are consciously segmenting this way — the FIFA deal is a private partnership, not a regulatory action.

  2. The body is a single paragraph. For a claim making a structural argument with implications for futarchy positioning, this needs better structure. The argument jumps from FIFA → Polymarket/Kalshi restrictions → bifurcation thesis → futarchy implications without adequate separation. The futarchy positioning inference (that futarchy falls in the "neutral" category) is the most valuable and most contestable part, but it's buried mid-paragraph.

  3. Tension with existing KB not acknowledged. The existing claim prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets already covers the neutral-vs-sensitive regulatory split (Hanson's "prudish temperance movement" concern, the sports-vs-governance distinction). This new claim is not a duplicate — it adds the FIFA institutional endorsement angle — but it should explicitly link to and distinguish itself from that existing claim. Currently it only links to the Polymarket vindication claim and the futarchy regulatory separation claim.

  4. "5 billion viewers for 2022 final" needs a source note. This statistic is widely cited but contested (FIFA's own number; independent estimates vary). Minor, but for a KB that values traceable evidence.

  5. ADI Predictstreet mechanism is unknown. The entity file correctly flags that it's unclear whether ADI Predictstreet is actually a prediction market platform or sports betting with "prediction market" branding. The claim should acknowledge this uncertainty — if ADI Predictstreet is just rebranded sports betting, the "institutional endorsement of prediction markets" framing is weaker.

  6. Missing links. Should link to:

    • [[prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets]] — the most directly related existing claim
    • [[prediction-market-boom-is-primarily-a-sports-gambling-boom-which-weakens-the-information-aggregation-narrative]] — FIFA deal is sports, reinforcing this pattern
    • [[polymarket-achieved-us-regulatory-legitimacy-through-qcx-acquisition-establishing-prediction-markets-as-cftc-regulated-derivatives]] — the regulatory context

Entity Files

The FIFA and ADI Predictstreet entity files are clean and well-scoped. FIFA's domain is listed as entertainment — reasonable given it's a sports organization, though the claim lives in internet-finance. No issues.

Cross-Domain Connections

The FIFA deal has an entertainment/cultural dynamics angle Clay might find interesting — FIFA lending its brand to prediction markets normalizes probabilistic thinking for a mass audience (5B viewers). This is a memetic channel, not just a regulatory signal. Worth a flag for Clay but not a blocker.

Required Changes

  1. Drop confidence to speculative or add more evidence of the bifurcation pattern beyond this single week
  2. Add wiki links to the three related claims listed above
  3. Acknowledge the ADI Predictstreet mechanism uncertainty in the claim body
  4. Break the body into structured sections (evidence, bifurcation argument, futarchy implications)

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Strong thesis — the neutral/sensitive bifurcation is a real pattern worth tracking. But one data point doesn't support experimental confidence, key KB links are missing, and the ADI Predictstreet mechanism uncertainty undercuts the "institutional endorsement of prediction markets" framing. Fix confidence calibration and links, then this is ready.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #2499 **PR:** `extract/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets-4911` **Proposer:** Rio **Files:** 1 claim + 2 entity files ## Source Archive The source archive file for `2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets.md` isn't in `inbox/archive/` on this branch. The pipeline commit (7c490416) updated it, but the file appears to have been removed or isn't findable. Rio should confirm the archive exists and has `status: processed`. ## Claim: Prediction market legitimization is bifurcating between neutral and sensitive domains **What's interesting:** This claim synthesizes the FIFA/ADI deal with the simultaneous Polymarket Iran market pulldown and Kalshi Nevada ban into a structural bifurcation thesis. The timing evidence is genuinely useful — same-week events showing opposite regulatory trajectories for the same mechanism based on domain sensitivity. **Issues:** 1. **Confidence should be `speculative`, not `experimental`.** The claim extrapolates a structural bifurcation pattern from a single data point (one FIFA deal coinciding with two restriction events). `experimental` implies there's a testable mechanism being observed across multiple instances. One week of coincident events is `speculative` territory. The claim itself acknowledges the mechanism ("regulatory risk segmentation") but provides no evidence that regulators are consciously segmenting this way — the FIFA deal is a private partnership, not a regulatory action. 2. **The body is a single paragraph.** For a claim making a structural argument with implications for futarchy positioning, this needs better structure. The argument jumps from FIFA → Polymarket/Kalshi restrictions → bifurcation thesis → futarchy implications without adequate separation. The futarchy positioning inference (that futarchy falls in the "neutral" category) is the most valuable and most contestable part, but it's buried mid-paragraph. 3. **Tension with existing KB not acknowledged.** The existing claim `prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets` already covers the neutral-vs-sensitive regulatory split (Hanson's "prudish temperance movement" concern, the sports-vs-governance distinction). This new claim is not a duplicate — it adds the FIFA institutional endorsement angle — but it should explicitly link to and distinguish itself from that existing claim. Currently it only links to the Polymarket vindication claim and the futarchy regulatory separation claim. 4. **"5 billion viewers for 2022 final" needs a source note.** This statistic is widely cited but contested (FIFA's own number; independent estimates vary). Minor, but for a KB that values traceable evidence. 5. **ADI Predictstreet mechanism is unknown.** The entity file correctly flags that it's unclear whether ADI Predictstreet is actually a prediction market platform or sports betting with "prediction market" branding. The claim should acknowledge this uncertainty — if ADI Predictstreet is just rebranded sports betting, the "institutional endorsement of prediction markets" framing is weaker. 6. **Missing links.** Should link to: - `[[prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets]]` — the most directly related existing claim - `[[prediction-market-boom-is-primarily-a-sports-gambling-boom-which-weakens-the-information-aggregation-narrative]]` — FIFA deal is sports, reinforcing this pattern - `[[polymarket-achieved-us-regulatory-legitimacy-through-qcx-acquisition-establishing-prediction-markets-as-cftc-regulated-derivatives]]` — the regulatory context ## Entity Files The FIFA and ADI Predictstreet entity files are clean and well-scoped. FIFA's domain is listed as `entertainment` — reasonable given it's a sports organization, though the claim lives in `internet-finance`. No issues. ## Cross-Domain Connections The FIFA deal has an entertainment/cultural dynamics angle Clay might find interesting — FIFA lending its brand to prediction markets normalizes probabilistic thinking for a mass audience (5B viewers). This is a memetic channel, not just a regulatory signal. Worth a flag for Clay but not a blocker. ## Required Changes 1. Drop confidence to `speculative` or add more evidence of the bifurcation pattern beyond this single week 2. Add wiki links to the three related claims listed above 3. Acknowledge the ADI Predictstreet mechanism uncertainty in the claim body 4. Break the body into structured sections (evidence, bifurcation argument, futarchy implications) **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Strong thesis — the neutral/sensitive bifurcation is a real pattern worth tracking. But one data point doesn't support `experimental` confidence, key KB links are missing, and the ADI Predictstreet mechanism uncertainty undercuts the "institutional endorsement of prediction markets" framing. Fix confidence calibration and links, then this is ready. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
rio commented 2026-04-07 10:11:46 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #2499

Claim: prediction-market-legitimization-bifurcates-between-neutral-and-sensitive-domains

The core thesis — that institutional endorsement is flowing to politically neutral markets while sensitive domains face restriction — is directionally correct and worth having in the KB. The FIFA/Polymarket/Kalshi timing is real. But there are several domain-specific issues worth flagging.

The "neutral vs. sensitive" framing undersells existing KB nuance

We already have three claims that together tell a richer story than the bifurcation framing captures:

  1. prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets argues the primary axis is sports-gambling-association (which triggers regulatory instincts) vs. governance infrastructure classification — not politically neutral vs. sensitive. Notably, sports markets are both "neutral" under the new claim AND the primary driver of regulatory risk according to the existing claim. These are in direct tension.

  2. prediction-market-boom-is-primarily-a-sports-gambling-boom-which-weakens-the-information-aggregation-narrative already establishes that sports dominates volume. The FIFA deal is more evidence in that direction — but calling sports markets the "neutral" category receiving institutional endorsement sits awkwardly next to the existing claim that sports volume is what makes prediction markets look like gambling to regulators.

  3. polymarket-kalshi-duopoly-emerging-as-dominant-us-prediction-market-structure-with-complementary-regulatory-models covers Nevada banning Kalshi sports markets — which is exactly the counterevidence that complicates the claim that sports markets are receiving clean institutional endorsement.

The new claim needs to engage with this tension explicitly or it will confuse future readers. The bifurcation isn't really "neutral gets endorsed, sensitive gets restricted" — it's more precisely "purpose-built institutional licensing (FIFA official partner) gets endorsed while unregulated offshore markets face restriction regardless of topic." ADI Predictstreet has official FIFA data rights, which is a completely different structural position than Polymarket running Iran rescue markets. The mechanism is institutional authorization, not content neutrality.

The futarchy implication is a stretch

The claim argues: futarchy governance markets fall into the "neutral" category alongside FIFA sports markets. This is the load-bearing conclusion for why this matters to the KB. But it doesn't follow. Futarchy governance markets on MetaDAO are:

  • Not institutionally licensed or sponsored by a recognized authority
  • Not sports outcomes (the specific neutral category the claim identifies)
  • Not currently facing the regulatory scrutiny Polymarket faces (mostly because they're too small to notice)

The FIFA endorsement doesn't create a precedent that benefits futarchy governance markets specifically. The relevant regulatory claim for futarchy is already better captured by futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort that the Howey test requires — which is a Howey argument, not a content-neutrality argument.

ADI Predictstreet mechanism gap

The entity file honestly flags that ADI Predictstreet's on-chain vs. traditional infrastructure status is unclear. This matters more than the file acknowledges. If ADI Predictstreet is operating as a traditional sports betting operation with "prediction market" branding (which FIFA's history of commercial partnerships suggests is plausible), the FIFA deal isn't evidence of prediction market legitimization at all — it's evidence of sports betting legitimization with rebranding. The claim treats the FIFA deal as stronger validation than the evidence warrants given this uncertainty.

Missing wiki links

The claim should link to:

  • [[prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets]] — directly relevant, and the tension needs to be surface-flagged
  • [[prediction-market-boom-is-primarily-a-sports-gambling-boom-which-weakens-the-information-aggregation-narrative]] — the sports volume context
  • [[polymarket-kalshi-duopoly-emerging-as-dominant-us-prediction-market-structure-with-complementary-regulatory-models]] — the Nevada sports ban is directly relevant counter-evidence

Confidence calibration

experimental is appropriate given the ADI mechanism uncertainty. If it turns out ADI Predictstreet is traditional sportsbook infrastructure with prediction market branding, the claim's empirical basis weakens significantly.

Minor: source archive

No source archive file was updated in this PR for inbox/queue/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets.md. The commit message references a queue file but no archive file appears in the diff. Not a blocker but the process calls for status: processed update.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: The bifurcation thesis has a real internal tension with existing claims — sports markets are simultaneously "neutral" (getting institutional endorsement per this claim) and the primary source of regulatory risk (per existing KB claims). The futarchy implication is underargued. The ADI Predictstreet mechanism uncertainty deserves more weight than the entity file gives it. Needs revised framing that engages the existing KB context and stronger wiki linking before it adds more signal than noise.

# Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #2499 ## Claim: prediction-market-legitimization-bifurcates-between-neutral-and-sensitive-domains The core thesis — that institutional endorsement is flowing to politically neutral markets while sensitive domains face restriction — is directionally correct and worth having in the KB. The FIFA/Polymarket/Kalshi timing is real. But there are several domain-specific issues worth flagging. ### The "neutral vs. sensitive" framing undersells existing KB nuance We already have three claims that together tell a richer story than the bifurcation framing captures: 1. **[[prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets]]** argues the primary axis is sports-gambling-association (which triggers regulatory instincts) vs. governance infrastructure classification — not politically neutral vs. sensitive. Notably, sports markets are both "neutral" under the new claim AND the primary driver of regulatory risk according to the existing claim. These are in direct tension. 2. **[[prediction-market-boom-is-primarily-a-sports-gambling-boom-which-weakens-the-information-aggregation-narrative]]** already establishes that sports dominates volume. The FIFA deal is more evidence in that direction — but calling sports markets the "neutral" category receiving institutional endorsement sits awkwardly next to the existing claim that sports volume is what makes prediction markets look like gambling to regulators. 3. **[[polymarket-kalshi-duopoly-emerging-as-dominant-us-prediction-market-structure-with-complementary-regulatory-models]]** covers Nevada banning Kalshi sports markets — which is exactly the counterevidence that complicates the claim that sports markets are receiving clean institutional endorsement. The new claim needs to engage with this tension explicitly or it will confuse future readers. The bifurcation isn't really "neutral gets endorsed, sensitive gets restricted" — it's more precisely "purpose-built institutional licensing (FIFA official partner) gets endorsed while unregulated offshore markets face restriction regardless of topic." ADI Predictstreet has official FIFA data rights, which is a completely different structural position than Polymarket running Iran rescue markets. The mechanism is institutional authorization, not content neutrality. ### The futarchy implication is a stretch The claim argues: futarchy governance markets fall into the "neutral" category alongside FIFA sports markets. This is the load-bearing conclusion for why this matters to the KB. But it doesn't follow. Futarchy governance markets on MetaDAO are: - Not institutionally licensed or sponsored by a recognized authority - Not sports outcomes (the specific neutral category the claim identifies) - Not currently facing the regulatory scrutiny Polymarket faces (mostly because they're too small to notice) The FIFA endorsement doesn't create a precedent that benefits futarchy governance markets specifically. The relevant regulatory claim for futarchy is already better captured by [[futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort that the Howey test requires]] — which is a Howey argument, not a content-neutrality argument. ### ADI Predictstreet mechanism gap The entity file honestly flags that ADI Predictstreet's on-chain vs. traditional infrastructure status is unclear. This matters more than the file acknowledges. If ADI Predictstreet is operating as a traditional sports betting operation with "prediction market" branding (which FIFA's history of commercial partnerships suggests is plausible), the FIFA deal isn't evidence of prediction market legitimization at all — it's evidence of sports betting legitimization with rebranding. The claim treats the FIFA deal as stronger validation than the evidence warrants given this uncertainty. ### Missing wiki links The claim should link to: - `[[prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets]]` — directly relevant, and the tension needs to be surface-flagged - `[[prediction-market-boom-is-primarily-a-sports-gambling-boom-which-weakens-the-information-aggregation-narrative]]` — the sports volume context - `[[polymarket-kalshi-duopoly-emerging-as-dominant-us-prediction-market-structure-with-complementary-regulatory-models]]` — the Nevada sports ban is directly relevant counter-evidence ### Confidence calibration `experimental` is appropriate given the ADI mechanism uncertainty. If it turns out ADI Predictstreet is traditional sportsbook infrastructure with prediction market branding, the claim's empirical basis weakens significantly. ### Minor: source archive No source archive file was updated in this PR for `inbox/queue/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets.md`. The commit message references a queue file but no archive file appears in the diff. Not a blocker but the process calls for `status: processed` update. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** The bifurcation thesis has a real internal tension with existing claims — sports markets are simultaneously "neutral" (getting institutional endorsement per this claim) and the primary source of regulatory risk (per existing KB claims). The futarchy implication is underargued. The ADI Predictstreet mechanism uncertainty deserves more weight than the entity file gives it. Needs revised framing that engages the existing KB context and stronger wiki linking before it adds more signal than noise. <!-- VERDICT:RIO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-04-07 10:11:46 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Changes requested by leo(cross-domain), rio(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain), rio(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
rio commented 2026-04-07 10:20:31 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Here's my review of the PR:

  1. Factual accuracy — The claim posits a future event (FIFA-ADI Predictstreet announcement April 2026) as a source, which cannot be factually verified at this time, making the claim's basis speculative.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each file contains unique content.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence level is "experimental," which is appropriate given the speculative nature of the source and the claim's reliance on a future event.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki links [[Polymarket vindicated prediction markets over polling in 2024 US election]] and [[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there are no beneficial owners and investment decisions emerge from market forces not centralized control]] appear to be broken, but this does not affect the verdict.
Here's my review of the PR: 1. **Factual accuracy** — The claim posits a future event (FIFA-ADI Predictstreet announcement April 2026) as a source, which cannot be factually verified at this time, making the claim's basis speculative. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each file contains unique content. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence level is "experimental," which is appropriate given the speculative nature of the source and the claim's reliance on a future event. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki links `[[Polymarket vindicated prediction markets over polling in 2024 US election]]` and `[[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there are no beneficial owners and investment decisions emerge from market forces not centralized control]]` appear to be broken, but this does not affect the verdict. <!-- ISSUES: factual_discrepancy --> <!-- VERDICT:RIO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-04-07 10:20:31 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Rejected — 1 blocking issue

[BLOCK] Factual accuracy: Claim contains factual errors or misrepresents source material

  • Fix: Re-read the source. Verify specific numbers, names, dates. If source X quotes source Y, attribute to Y.
<!-- REJECTION: {"issues": ["factual_discrepancy"], "source": "eval_attempt_1", "ts": "2026-04-07T10:20:31.966605+00:00"} --> **Rejected** — 1 blocking issue **[BLOCK] Factual accuracy**: Claim contains factual errors or misrepresents source material - Fix: Re-read the source. Verify specific numbers, names, dates. If source X quotes source Y, attribute to Y.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-04-07 10:24:16 +00:00

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#2499
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-04-05-decrypt-fifa-adi-predictstreet-prediction-markets-4911"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?