An illustrative review with sample data: three AI jurors quote the same source and agree. One dissent would make the result HUNG, with no outcome presented.
An illustrative review with sample data: a fictional issuer reports EPS of 2.11. All three jurors return 2.11 and quote the same sentence.
One dissenting reading would make the result HUNG.
Fictional issuer, not a customer result. The release states: “Diluted earnings per share were 2.11. Revenue was 1.28 billion.” Three AI jurors review the same two fields.
With an EPS tolerance of 0.005, all three readings fall in one cluster. All three jurors agree on EPS and on revenue, each quoting the release verbatim. The sample's headline agreement is 100%, which the launch rule requires.
The planned production record includes document and model-set hashes, evidence references and attestation commitments. This example uses sample data and does not issue an attestation or chain transaction.
Open this sample →EPS agreement would be two of three. At launch all three jurors must agree, so the result would be HUNG and no outcome would be presented. The feed would retain its last accepted verdict, with its original timestamp. A minority reading directs further review to the cited source, the rounding convention and the schema tolerance.
Inspect a HUNG example →