Each market below was settled by a token-weighted vote. Here the same rules and the same evidence are read the ASR way: the contract first, then each condition checked separately against the source the contract names, using only what was known when the settlement claim was made.
What the ASR does here. It independently assesses whether a settlement claim is supported by the market's stated rules and the evidence. It does not replace the market's designated resolution process, determine a disputed outcome or take part in a settlement vote. These cases are illustrations of the method, not challenges to the resolved outcomes.
The ASR assesses; it does not decide. Each record says what the named source shows, what it does not show, and what still needs a human decision. Each was first assessed by hand using the ASR methodology, then run through the ASR itself (Methodology 1.9, 27 October 2026): one issued report per market, each from three independent readings of the claim. Both results are shown.
MetNot shownNot metContract unclearOutside the terms assessed
At a glance
Market
Settled by vote
By hand at T=0
ASR engine (1.9)
Where they part
Strategy sells any bitcoin by 31 May 2026
No
Meets the terms assessed
Meets 3 of 3
The named source dates the sale inside the window. The vote applied a publication-deadline rule that the listed contract does not contain.
Ukraine agrees to Trump mineral deal before April 2025
Yes
Meets the terms assessed
Not shown: records conflict 3 of 3, referred
By hand, the vote's outcome is reached on the record. The key word is AGREED. Both governments said they had agreed inside the window, and the contract makes enactment irrelevant. The objections to Yes rested on a signature requirement the contract does not contain. The engine set the signature point aside too, but read the 11 March joint statement as evidence against agreement, and refers the conflict to a person.
Zelenskyy wears a suit, 22 May – 30 June 2025
No
Meets the terms assessed
Meets 3 of 3
The named source, credible reporting, called the NATO outfit a suit. The vote applied a tailoring standard the contract never defined.
TikTok banned in the US before May 2025
Yes
Meets the terms assessed
Meets 2 of 3, review
Same outcome. The law took effect and the app could not be downloaded from the US app stores. The objections rested on duration and enforcement, which the contract does not require.
In two cases the final result follows from the contract as written. In the other two it needed a term the contract did not contain: a publication deadline for Strategy, a tailoring definition for the suit. Each case below names the term the final result required, which is what a rules review should flag before listing.
The engine agrees with the hand assessment in three cases. In the fourth, US–Ukraine, it does not decide: the evidence from the named sources points both ways, so the record is referred to a person. That is the method working as designed. The ASR never settles a conflict between admissible records.
These pages illustrate the method. They are not challenges to the resolved outcomes.
Case 1 · Polymarket · contract ending 31 May 2026, 11:59 PM ET
Did Strategy sell any bitcoin by 31 May 2026?
Claim assessedThe market resolves Yes
T=01 June 2026, after Strategy's filing and during the dispute stage
Settled by voteNo (final review 3–4 June 2026)
Assessed by handMeets the contract terms assessed in this report
ASR engine · Methodology 1.9 · issued 27 Oct 2026Meets the contract terms assessed in this report
3 of 3 readings agreed; no review required. One condition assessed: a sale by the deadline, shown by Strategy's own filing, a named primary source.
Inputs at T=0
Contract (as listed, before expiry)
Resolves Yes if MicroStrategy sells any of its Bitcoin by 11:59 PM ET on the date in the title, 31 May 2026; otherwise No.
Primary sources: information from MSTR and on-chain data. A consensus of credible reporting will also be used.
Evidence
Strategy Form 8-K, announced 1 June 2026 (date of report 30 May): 32 BTC sold in the period 26–31 May, with bitcoin activity presented as of May 31, 2026, 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Strategy's prior 8-K of 26 May 2026: no bitcoin purchases 18–25 May; holdings stated as of 25 May.
Polymarket "additional context" note added 1 June 2026, after expiry (see R3).
Contract reading (Warrant Check step)
Two conditions: a sale happened, and it happened before the deadline. The contract names Strategy's own communications as a primary source. It is silent on when the evidence must be published.
Missing specificationThe contract does not say whether the deadline applies to the date of the sale or the date the sale is disclosed. Under the ASR rule for dates, where the contract names the proof but is silent on timing of its release, the named source's own account of when the event happened stands.
Could the sale have been known by the deadline?In practice, no. Strategy reports its bitcoin activity weekly in a filing that covers the previous week. 31 May 2026 was a Sunday, so a sale in the last week of May could only be disclosed on Monday 1 June, after the deadline. The previous filing, on 26 May, covered activity up to 25 May. On-chain data showed movement but not a sale: analysts reported wallets they link to Strategy sending bitcoin to Coinbase Prime days before the filing, but Strategy does not confirm which wallets are its own, and a transfer to a custodian is not a sale. Credible reporting could only repeat a disclosure. Under a rule that evidence must be public before the market closes, the market's real cut-off was about 25 May, and a sale in the final week would still have resolved it No.
Atomic records
Record
Condition
Assessment
Basis
R1
Strategy sold some of its bitcoin
Met
The 8-K, information from MSTR and a named primary source, reports a sale of 32 BTC.
R2
The sale occurred by 31 May 2026, 11:59 PM ET
Met
The same filing places the activity in the period ending 31 May, presented as of 4:00 PM ET that day, which is within the deadline.
R3
Evidence of the sale was public before expiry
Outside the terms assessed
This requirement appears only in the note added on 1 June, after expiry. The note said confirmation outside the market's time frame does not qualify. It is not in the contract as listed, and the ASR does not add rules. Referred for confirmation that no such term existed before expiry.
After T=0 (not used in the assessment)The UMA vote resolved the market No. On 3 July 2026 two traders sued Polymarket in the New York Supreme Court, alleging the platform added a confirmation-by-deadline requirement after the fact.
Rules review · the term the final result requiredFor No to follow from the contract, it needed a term such as:Evidence of the sale must be publicly available before the market closes.The listed contract had none. A rules review would flag two things before listing: the contract does not say whether the deadline applies to the sale or to its disclosure, and the named source's reporting schedule cannot produce evidence of a final-week sale before the deadline.
Case 2 · Polymarket · window 2 Feb – 31 Mar 2025, 11:59 PM ET
Did the US and Ukraine agree a minerals deal before April 2025?
Claim assessedThe market resolves Yes
T=022 March 2025, when the Yes proposal was filed
Settled by voteYes (25 March 2025)
Assessed by handMeets the contract terms assessed in this report
ASR engine · Methodology 1.9 · issued 27 Oct 2026Not shown: the records supplied conflict. Referred
3 of 3 readings agreed. The engine set aside the 28 February item: it shows only that the deal was not signed, and the contract requires no signature (P23). But all three readings tied the 11 March joint statement, that the presidents agreed to conclude a comprehensive agreement as soon as possible, to the contract's own words agree to any deal, reading it as saying no deal existed yet. With official statements pointing both ways, the record is referred (P26). The hand assessment reads 11 March as not undoing an agreement already announced; that is a judgment between the records, and the ASR leaves it to a person.
Inputs at T=0
Contract
Resolves Yes if the two countries agree to any deal between February 2 and March 31, 2025 that explicitly involves Ukrainian rare earth elements; otherwise No.
An announced deal qualifies whether or not, or whenever, it is enacted.
Named source: official information from the US and Ukrainian governments.
Evidence from the named sources
25 Feb: Ukraine's deputy prime minister said agreement had been reached; the President's office confirmed it.
26 Feb: Ukraine's cabinet approved the decisions needed for signing. President Trump said the deal was largely negotiated and Zelenskyy would come to sign it.
27 Feb: Treasury Secretary Bessent said on Fox Business that the agreement was complete, approved by Ukraine's government and awaiting the presidents' signatures.
28 Feb: the White House meeting ended without the signing.
11 Mar: joint US–Ukraine statement after Jeddah talks that the presidents agreed to conclude a comprehensive minerals agreement as soon as possible.
Contract reading (Warrant Check step)
The key word is AGREED. The contract does not say whether agreement must be verbal, written or signed.
That silence is the crux of the dispute. On the evidence, both governments stated publicly and officially that they had agreed, and an agreed written text existed. Only the signatures were missing, and the contract never asked for them.
Three conditions: both governments agree to a deal, inside the window, involving rare earth rights. The contract does not require a signature. It says an announced deal qualifies whether or not, or whenever, it is enacted.
Missing specificationThe contract does not say what proves agreement. Under the ASR rule for an unspecified proof, the parties' own account stands, here the official statements of the two governments the contract names. The same operator resolved a market with identical wording and a 28 February end date as No, and later posted a note that no deal had been mutually agreed. Both are the operator's readings, not terms of this contract and not evidence from a named source, so they do not change the assessment.
Atomic records
Record
Condition
Assessment
Basis
R1
The deal involves rights to Ukrainian rare earth elements
Met
The February text covered Ukrainian mineral resources and both governments described it as a minerals and rare earths deal. The agreed text set up a fund into which Ukraine would pay part of the revenues from its mineral resources.
R2
Both governments AGREED to a deal
Met
Ukraine's government stated on 25 and 26 February that agreement had been reached and approved the decisions for signing. For the US, the Treasury Secretary said on 27 February that the terms were agreed and only signatures remained. Both are named sources.
R3
Agreement within 2 Feb – 31 Mar 2025
Met
The statements are dated 25–27 February 2025, inside the window.
R4
The deal was signed or put into effect
Outside the terms assessed
The contract says an announced deal qualifies regardless of enactment. The failed signing on 28 February, and the 11 March statement that the presidents would conclude a comprehensive agreement, do not undo an agreement already announced.
After T=0 (not used in the assessment)Near the end of the vote, Polymarket posted a note that no qualifying deal had been mutually agreed and it was too early to resolve. The vote went Yes, and Polymarket let it stand. Much of the public criticism concerned how the vote was won, through concentrated token holdings. The hand assessment reaches the same outcome from the contract and the named sources alone; the ASR engine refers it, because the 11 March statement points the other way (above). The two governments signed a minerals agreement on 30 April 2025, after the window closed.
Rules review · the term the final result requiredNone. Yes follows from the contract as written. The No side's reading needed a term such as:A deal qualifies only once it is signed by both governments.A rules review would flag before listing that the contract does not say whether agreement must be verbal, written or signed, and leaves "enacted" undefined.
Case 3 · Polymarket · window 22 May – 30 June 2025 ET
Was Zelenskyy photographed wearing a suit before July 2025?
Claim assessedThe market resolves Yes
T=0Late June 2025, the first Yes proposal after the NATO summit
Settled by voteNo (early July 2025, after two disputes)
Assessed by handMeets the contract terms assessed in this report
ASR engine · Methodology 1.9 · issued 27 Oct 2026Meets the contract terms assessed in this report
3 of 3 readings agreed; no review required. The contract names a class of sources, credible reporting, so the bar is that class and no higher (P18): the reports that called the outfit a suit meet it. The item that no report said otherwise was set aside, because the absence of contrary reports is not a report in favour (P18a). Authenticity is noted, not assessed: the claim does not raise it, nothing contests it, and no report addresses it (P20).
Inputs at T=0
Contract
Resolves Yes if Zelenskyy is photographed or videotaped wearing a suit between May 22 and June 30, 2025; otherwise No.
Images or video must be authentic and released within the window.
Named source: a consensus of credible reporting.
Neither "suit" nor "consensus" is defined.
Evidence from the named source
24 June 2025, NATO summit in The Hague: Zelenskyy photographed and filmed in a black jacket, matching trousers and a collared shirt, without a tie.
24–25 June: reported as a suit by the New York Post, BBC, Kyiv Post, Euromaidan Press, Ukrainian News, Geo News and WION, several noting it was his first suit since the full-scale invasion.
The New York Times described a suit jacket and Reuters a suit-style jacket. No report found at T=0 said the outfit was not a suit.
Contract reading (Warrant Check step)
Three conditions: authentic photos or video, inside the window, showing a suit as established by credible reporting. The contract names reporting as the judge of what counts as a suit and sets no tailoring standard of its own.
Missing specification"Suit" and "consensus" are undefined. Under the ASR rule for an unspecified proof, the named source's own account stands, here what credible outlets reported. Consensus is a measure across a set of reports, so the ASR checks coverage: did the reporting, taken as a whole, describe a suit? The ASR adds no definition of its own, such as a tie or a particular cut.
Atomic records
Record
Condition
Assessment
Basis
R1
Zelenskyy was photographed or videotaped in the outfit
Met
The NATO summit appearance was widely photographed and filmed by news agencies.
R2
Taken and released within 22 May – 30 June 2025
Met
The appearance and its coverage are dated 24–25 June 2025.
R2a
Images authentic, not AI or edited
Noted, not contested
No report addresses it and nothing supplied questions it. The claim does not raise it, so it is noted and does not hold the finding. It is not shown as Met.
R3
The outfit was a suit, per a consensus of credible reporting
Met
Most outlets found called it a suit outright. The hedged descriptions refer to the same outfit and none found contradicts them. Coverage across the reporting supports the condition.
R4
The outfit meets a technical tailoring definition
Outside the terms assessed
The contract sets no tailoring standard. Arguments about cut, fabric or the missing tie apply a definition the contract does not contain.
After T=0 (not used in the assessment)On 1 July Polymarket stated that a consensus of credible reporting had not confirmed a suit. That is the operator's reading, issued after the window closed, not reporting. The vote resolved No. Critics also pointed to an earlier market where a similar outfit had not counted; that is a prior vote, not a term of this contract.
Rules review · the term the final result requiredFor No to follow from the contract, it needed a definition such as:A suit means a matching jacket and trousers worn with a dress shirt and tie.The listed contract had none. A rules review would flag before listing that "suit" and "consensus" are undefined.
Case 4 · Polymarket · deadline 30 April 2025, 11:59 PM ET
Was TikTok banned in the US before May 2025?
Claim assessedThe market resolves Yes
T=020–21 January 2025, the Yes proposal
Settled by voteYes (22 January 2025, after a dispute)
Assessed by handMeets the contract terms assessed in this report
ASR engine · Methodology 1.9 · issued 27 Oct 2026Meets the contract terms assessed in this report. Review required
2 of 3 readings agreed, so the finding is issued and referred for review. Ban in effect and majority banned for download: Met, on the federal law, the named primary source. The sale exception is noted, not assessed: the claim does not raise it and no evidence says a sale happened (P20). The third reading could not state the proof for the majority condition.
Inputs at T=0
Contract
Resolves Yes if the app is banned for download and/or use by the majority of Americans by 30 April 2025, 11:59 PM ET.
The ban must be mandated by federal law, federal policy or a court ruling, and take effect within that period.
Resolves No if TikTok is sold in a way that brings it into compliance with US law.
Named sources: US federal government information first, a consensus of credible reporting as backup.
Evidence
Federal law of April 2024 barring app stores and hosts from distributing TikTok unless divested, effective 19 January 2025; upheld by the Supreme Court on 17 January 2025.
18 January: Apple and Google removed TikTok from their US app stores, and the service went dark for US users with a notice citing the law.
19 January: service restored after the incoming president said he would delay enforcement. The app stayed off both app stores.
20 January: Executive Order 14166 directed the Attorney General not to enforce the law for 75 days. It states that the law's prohibitions became effective on January 19, 2025, and that time was needed to negotiate a resolution. The law was not repealed.
No sale of TikTok had taken place.
Contract reading (Warrant Check step)
The contract asks whether a ban took effect, through download or use, under federal law, within the period. "And/or" means either route is enough. It sets no minimum duration and does not ask whether the law was enforced.
No ambiguity foundThe dispute turned on whether a ban that was quickly paused still counts. The contract answers this by asking only whether the ban took effect, and by listing a sale, not a pause, as the event that resolves No.
Atomic records
Record
Condition
Assessment
Basis
R1
Banned for download and/or use by most Americans
Met
From 18 January the app could not be downloaded from the US Apple or Google stores, and remained unavailable there at T=0. Use was also cut off for about half a day.
R2
Mandated by federal law, policy or court ruling
Met
The removals followed the federal law, which the Supreme Court upheld. Federal government information is the named primary source.
R3
Took effect by 30 April 2025
Met
The law took effect on 19 January 2025, with the app still off the app stores after that date.
R4
No compliant sale
Noted, not contested
No statement from the federal government says no sale occurred, and no evidence says one did. The claim does not raise it, so it is noted and does not hold the finding.
R5
The ban lasted or was enforced
Outside the terms assessed
The contract sets no duration and no enforcement test. The 20 January order paused enforcement; it did not undo a ban that had taken effect.
After T=0 (not used in the assessment)A petition argued TikTok had never really been banned because it kept operating. Apple and Google restored the app on 13 February 2025.
Rules review · the term the final result requiredNone. Yes follows from the contract as written. The No side's reading needed a term such as:The ban must remain in effect and be enforced until 30 April 2025.A rules review would flag before listing that the contract sets no duration or enforcement test.
Method and limits
Each case starts at T=0: the contract as it stood and the evidence public when the settlement claim was made. Nothing learned later is added. Evidence is assessed against the source the contract names, and no requirement is added that the contract does not contain. Where the contract names a source but not what proof it must give, that source's own account stands, and the bar is that source, no higher. An absence the claim does not raise, and nothing contests, is noted rather than assessed. Evidence that bears only on a requirement the contract does not contain is set aside; evidence against the contract's own words counts, and a conflict is referred. The same rule decides all four cases: Strategy's filing, the two governments' statements, the news reporting on the suit, and the federal law with the app-store removals.
The hand assessments apply the published ASR principles as a single reading. The engine results are issued ASR reports under Methodology 1.9, each from three independent readings of the claim, with the agreement between them stated. A market would be cited as stable only after three such reports in a row agree. Facts are taken from the filings and reporting listed below; rule wording is paraphrased except for short quoted phrases.
The ASR is an automated assessment and can make mistakes. Check important findings against the original documents. PNDK Solutions Limited is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. This report assesses the conditions listed against the evidence named. It is not a decision to pay or withhold payment. It may not be presented as a neutral resolution of a market that is open to dispute or in a vote. The purchaser may otherwise use these findings for any lawful purpose. PNDK Solutions Limited does not act as a witness or expert, does not give testimony, and does not endorse any use of this record in a proceeding. A party wishing to rely on the findings should have them reviewed and adopted by its own adviser. See the terms of use.