From 6c6cd0d14e02702d580d21cf7a4329404a12098a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: m3taversal Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 18:04:30 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] feat: support fundraise record_type alongside decision_market LLM now classifies proposals as either decision_market (governance votes) or fundraise (ICO/launch capital raises). Both handled by same extractor. Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70> --- extract-decisions.py | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/extract-decisions.py b/extract-decisions.py index a2f7020..46c5421 100644 --- a/extract-decisions.py +++ b/extract-decisions.py @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ Given this proposal source, produce a JSON object with these fields: - "proposer": Who proposed it (name or handle) - "proposal_date": ISO date when created - "resolution_date": ISO date when resolved (null if active) +- "record_type": One of: "decision_market" (governance proposals voted on via futarchy) or "fundraise" (ICO/launch raising capital through MetaDAO or Futardio) - "category": One of: treasury, hiring, product, governance, fundraise, incentives, migration, other - "summary": 1-2 sentence summary of what this proposal does and why it matters. Be specific — include dollar amounts, key parameters, and outcomes. - "significance": 2-3 paragraphs analyzing why this proposal matters for the futarchy ecosystem. What does it prove or test? What precedent does it set? How does it relate to broader governance patterns? @@ -234,9 +235,10 @@ def build_decision_record(source_path: Path, dry_run: bool = False) -> Path | No market_lines.append(line_stripped) # Build frontmatter + record_type = analysis.get("record_type", "decision_market") record_fm = { "type": "decision", - "entity_type": "decision_market", + "entity_type": record_type, "name": analysis.get("name", title), "domain": domain, "status": analysis.get("status", "unknown"),