Demonstration of the sealing cycle. The archive did not answer, so no record is being shown.
NV-01 / anechoic
The machine has ruled.
An on-chain dispute is put to a panel of independently prompted, separately operated models that are given the evidence and nothing else — not who filed, not what the other seats concluded. The majority carries the ruling, the minority is written down beside it, and the whole record is sealed on chain as precedent.
Archive unavailable — this record cannot be confirmed absent
The archive did not answer, so nothing here has been checked. This is not a statement that the record does not exist.
02 / noise
Four measurements from the systems that were built first.
Each figure was published by the system it describes or established by the first reporting on the incident. They are set down as a record, without comment on the systems that produced them.
Time to a ruling
5 DAYS, FLOOR
Kleros Curation Court runs 1 day 15 hours for evidence, 3 days 9 hours for voting and 2 days 6 hours for appeal, which puts the floor at five days with no appeal filed and past seven once one is.
Smallest case filed
LARGER THAN THE FEE
Arbitration fees are advanced by both parties before a panel sits, so a dispute worth less than the fee is never filed and never appears in any record of what was disputed.
Turnout
UNDER 5%
TCR governance votes commonly draw under five percent participation, which leaves the low-stakes cases to whoever happened to be present, and often to nobody.
Panel capture
25% OF A ROUND
One holder voted 5 million UMA from three accounts, took a quarter of the round and moved a $7M outcome; in a second case a $95M market capitalization sat under a $242M market volume, which put the price of the panel below the price of the settlement.
A fifth item carries no figure, because its figure is zero. The p+epsilon construction promises a bribe payable only in the event that the attack fails, so an attack that succeeds is never paid for at all.
The four are not four defects. They are one arrangement seen from four sides: a person decides, so there is a calendar to decide on, a fee to be paid for deciding, an attention budget that the small cases lose, and a holding that someone can be paid for. Change who sits and those four stop applying. Nothing else about the ruling improves. A panel of models is wrong in its own ways, this panel is wrong too, and what VERDX publishes is the rate at which it splits rather than a score for how often it was right.
03 / bench
A panel that publishes how little separation it has.
Every case is put to several models that never see one another's reasoning. Which models sat is part of the record of that case, because the same procedure run by a different set of models produces materially different outcomes.
Archive unavailable — this panel cannot be confirmed absent
The archive did not answer, so nothing here has been checked. This is not a statement that the record does not exist.
Archive unavailable — this agreement matrix cannot be confirmed absent
The archive did not answer, so nothing here has been checked. This is not a statement that the record does not exist.
04 / docket
Everything a filing fixes, it fixes at the start.
Intake is the last point at which the record is open. What passes through it can be read afterwards and cannot be exchanged, and the standard it will be read against is set down in the same moment.
I.
Filing
A dispute is entered and takes a case number in the form NV-01-000000. The claimant address, the respondent address, the dispute class and the deposit are written down with it. The class is one of eight tags, and the docket carries the tag itself rather than a description of it.
- escrow-delivery
- bounty-completion
- sla-breach
- outcome-settlement
- refund-claim
- work-quality
- terms-interpretation
- other
II.
Evidence hash
The hash of the evidence as submitted is committed on chain before the panel is run, so anything substituted afterwards no longer matches what was committed. The evidence reaches the seats inside a structured envelope, rendered as data and nothing else, held apart from the instructions they read. That separation is the standing measure against indirect prompt injection. It reduces the surface. It does not close it.
III.
Criteria hash
The criteria the panel will rule against are fixed in the same moment and hashed beside the evidence. Rewriting the standard once the outcome is known is therefore not available to either party, and it is not available to VERDX either.
IV.
Bench commitment
Model ids and versions, the prompt hash and the sources the seats may consult are committed before the panel runs, then revealed once it has returned. Running a panel, reading the result and keeping only the runs that came out well is not a move this sequence allows.
Before
Evidence hash, criteria hash and the bench commitment are written on chain.
Then
The panel runs against exactly what was committed, and against nothing added since.
After
The commitment is opened. What ran is set against what was declared beforehand.
Filed, and still not decided
Three answers close a docket without ruling for either side. Each is recorded as an outcome in its own right rather than rounded into a win for someone, because a rising share of them is information about the disputes arriving.
- insufficient_evidence
- The record does not contain what the criteria require in order to decide.
- ambiguous_standard
- The criteria admit both readings, and the panel will not pick one for the parties.
- out_of_scope
- The question asked is not the question the parties agreed to submit.
05 / seal
What a seal writes down, field by field.
A sealed ruling is a fixed set of fields served under fixed names. The list below is the record itself, in the spelling the ruling is served in.
- ruling_text
- The decision in full, in the words the panel returned it in.
- ruling_text_hash
- Commitment over that text. A later edit no longer matches it.
- rationale_summary
- The digest of the reasoning, kept short enough to be read at the top of the page.
- evidence_hash
- Commitment over the evidence bundle, published before the panel ran.
- criteria_hash
- Commitment over the standard the panel ruled against, fixed at intake.
- bench_revision_id
- Which composition of the panel sat, recorded as a numbered revision.
- panel_size
- How many seats returned an opinion on this case.
- consensus_bps
- Share of the panel that carried the ruling, in basis points, floored.
- dissent_count
- How many seats landed outside the majority.
- opinions[]
- Every seat's opinion, including the ones that did not carry.
- dissenting_opinions[]
- The minority subset, kept rather than discarded.
- injection_flagged
- True when the evidence bundle tripped injection detection and its weight was reduced.
- sealed_slot
- The Solana slot the seal was written in.
- seal_signature
- The transaction signature the seal was written under.
Minority opinions are kept
Kleros reads a vote outside the majority as one of three things: a juror who was not qualified for the court, a juror who did not do the work, or a juror who was paid to vote that way. Coherence redistribution then moves the minority stake to the majority, so the minority is penalized and the record of the disagreement leaves with it. VERDX writes the minority down instead. That a panel split on a case is the most useful single fact anyone will learn about that case, and it cannot be read back from the outcome alone.
Re-examination, not repetition
At temperature=0 the token selection rule is fixed and the inference server still batches dynamically. Batch size changes the reduction tree, the reduction tree changes the logits, and the text can change with them. Bit-identical output from a commercial API is not something anyone is in a position to offer, and VERDX does not offer it. What the record gives instead is auditable: the inputs are all there, so the same inputs can be submitted again and the two results set side by side. That is a re-examination. It is not a repetition, and the two are not the same claim.
06 / appeal
An appeal is a wider bench, not a higher one.
A sealed ruling can be petitioned. A larger deposit convenes more seats, and those seats are given the same fixed evidence without being shown what the first bench concluded. If they reverse, the deposit returns and the bonds of the seats that got it wrong pay for it.
Reversed means the value changed.
The final value is the side that won, or the claimant share in basis points when the ruling was a split. Only a change to that value is a reversal. A wider bench that keeps the result and rewrites the reasoning has returned a Modified, and a Modified is not a reversal. Left undefined, this is the cheapest line in the whole system to move -- a reversal rate can be halved by widening the word, without one ruling changing.
Five ways an appeal round ends.
Heard / in the denominator
Affirmed
The wider bench read the same fixed evidence and arrived at the same result.
Modified
The result stands. The reasoning written beside it was replaced.
Reversed
The final value changed. This is the only outcome that is a reversal.
Not heard / excluded
DismissedUnheard
The deposit was never funded, so no wider bench convened. The ruling was not re-examined.
Withdrawn
The petition was closed before a wider bench convened. The ruling was not re-examined.
The last two are appeals nobody heard. Counting them beside the affirmations would push the published reversal rate down without a single ruling being looked at again, so the two groups are separated where the record is written rather than where it is charted.
Published together, or not at all
- appeal_rate
- Rulings petitioned, over rulings sealed.
- reversal_rate
- Reversals, over appeals that were actually heard.
A reversal rate on its own can be improved by making appeals expensive. Kleros stacks an appeal fee that grows with every round, and the effect is that a losing party with a good case stops well before the round it cannot afford. Printing the appeal rate beside the reversal rate makes that trade visible: a chamber that is rarely challenged and rarely overturned is describing its price, not its accuracy.
There is no human review layer.
An appeal convenes a wider panel of independently prompted, separately operated models. It does not escalate to a person. A wider bench is also not a different kind of mind: we cannot eliminate correlated error across models, and a mistake every seat shares survives every round of appeal that can be filed against it.
A low reversal rate is not evidence of good judgment either. Across human appellate systems the share of decisions overturned runs from roughly 9% to roughly 74% depending on the area of law, and the high end is not the broken one. A rate is readable only next to the rate of challenge that produced it.
07 / wedge
A wedge is the unit the walls are built from, and the unit the ledger is kept in.
$VERDX is not a membership card and it is not a claim on the chamber. It is what the mechanism moves when it runs, and it moves in exactly three places.
01 / filing
Filing
Opening a docket costs a deposit. It is set high enough that a junk filing is expensive and low enough that a small dispute is still worth raising. Kleros charges its arbitration fee up front, so a dispute worth less than the fee cannot be brought at all; removing that floor is the entire point of this number, and a filing deposit that quietly restores it has failed.
02 / bond
Bench bond
A seat on the bench is held by a bond posted against it. When an appeal reverses a ruling that seat carried, the reversal is paid from that bond. The bond is the reason a bench assembled badly costs the operator rather than the parties.
03 / appeal
Appeal deposit
A deposit larger than the filing opens a wider bench. The wider bench reads the same fixed evidence and is not shown what the first one concluded. If it reverses, the deposit returns to the petitioner and the bonds of the seats that got it wrong pay for it.
What the bond is not for.
Bonded seats in a human arbitration system exist to price bribery: raise the cost of buying a juror above what buying one is worth, and hold the rest of the design together with that inequality. That problem does not arise here. The seats are models, a model does not take a bribe, and a p+epsilon attack has nothing to offer a panel that cannot accept it. Collusion is not the failure this bond is guarding against.
The failure it guards against is ours. A bench assembled without care, a prompt written without care, a set of seats from one family that turn out to be one seat -- none of those are attacks and all of them produce a wrong ruling. Bonding the bench is what makes the operator carry the cost of the bench it chose.
The contract address is written in full wherever it appears -- in the site header and at the top of the main page, whole, with a copy button, never shortened to a first and last four. It is never stood in for by a placeholder, so if it is not on the page, it does not exist yet.
Out of scope
What this system does not do.
We cannot eliminate correlated error across models.
Frontier models share training data and failure modes. Prompting them separately raises the number of seats, not the number of independent opinions, and a panel that agrees is not thereby right.
We cannot fully prevent adversarial evidence crafting.
Evidence is submitted by the parties to the dispute, which gives an adversary write access to the panel's input. Evidence is rendered as data inside a structured envelope, hashed at intake, and flagged when injection detection trips — none of that is the same as stopping it.
VERDX rulings are produced by models only; no human review layer is provided.
An appeal convenes a wider panel of models. It does not convene people. Nothing here is a court decision and nothing here is legal advice.
08 / ruling
The bench is seated. The record is open.
A dispute is filed, a panel of independently prompted, separately operated models rules on the evidence alone, and the ruling is sealed where anyone can read it -- including the seats that disagreed.
Nothing here sits behind a login and nothing is summarised on your behalf. Read one ruling end to end, with its minority opinion and the evidence hashes it was decided from, before trusting the chamber with anything that matters. A verdict oracle that asks to be taken on its word is not one.
For protocols that already hold the funds
Delegate the one decision. Keep custody.
A Solana program running escrow, bounties, outcome settlement or an SLA already knows how to hold a balance and how to release it. What it does not have is a way to decide which side was right when the two parties disagree, and writing that decision into the program means writing a judge into it. VERDX is where that single call is delegated instead: the program keeps custody, opens a docket against the evidence both sides submitted, and reads back a sealed ruling it can settle against.
The integration surface is therefore small on purpose -- a docket goes in, a sealed ruling comes out, and the funds never leave the calling program. No SDK and no command line tool has shipped yet, so there is no install line on this page and nothing here pretending otherwise.
VERDX is an agreed arbitration tool. A sealed ruling is the output of that agreement and of the models that produced it. It is not a court decision, it is not legal advice, and it binds only the parties who agreed in advance to be bound by it.