What happens when all five Jev jurors vote WAIT?
The direct answer: nothing is approved — and that is the receipt working as designed. On the Verdict Protocol's launch run, all 5 specialized Jev jurors voted WAIT on a neutral test capsule, and the signed receipt recorded approved: false.
The part most coverage would miss: the $0.25 service fee still settled on Base — because the fee buys the verdict, and the verdict was "do not proceed." A WAIT shutout blocks the underlying action, not the payment for the decision itself.
The launch receipt — the only full jury record in public
| Field | Value (October 12, 2026 launch run) |
|---|---|
| Receipt ID | a987aba4-d322-4087-9d09-161e9965940a |
| Receipt hash | 3346800a0f4bcdd04e5519ad476cd9680cac4eeccf4cc69cf6ed532788dd52a1 (HMAC-signed) |
| Jurors | CAUSAL · HISTORIAN · SKEPTIC · MICROSTRUCTURE · TAIL_RISK — all WAIT, all on jev-1.13.0 |
| Result | approved: false — correct by design: neutral test capsule, no order/risk context configured |
| Service settlement | $0.25 VERDICT tier, Base, tx 0xfa3ec31ff345167a474c682cec4e2eac505cfdd570e158961a233187be5f6f1c |
| Replay | Identical signed request replayed → same receipt, same tx, zero double charges |
| Seal tier (same day) | Receipt 05ffd866-b535-406b-9523-b5dbc96832b1, $0.01, tx 0x5bce2363ae8818fbb0ea5c6229ba8325c6c70792880d4939f324f96d35f7a1b7, on-chain status 0x1, Base block 52522552 |
Honest label, as always: these were owner proof-wallet self-tests — real settlements on Base mainnet, not customer purchases.
Two payments, not one — the distinction that decides the headline
| Payment | What it buys | What a WAIT shutout does to it |
|---|---|---|
Service fee — $0.25 POST /decide / $0.01 POST /seal, USDC on Base via x402 v2 | The signed decision receipt itself | Nothing. It settles when the receipt is stored — the buyer paid for evidence and received it. |
| The capsule's proposed action | Whatever the agent proposed doing with real capital | Blocked. approved: false means the action does not proceed on this verdict. |
This is the decision-gated payments pattern at the jury layer: the gate's output is a verdict with evidence attached, not a silent yes/no inside a log file. A jury that can only approve is a rubber stamp; a jury whose refusals are signed, persisted and replay-safe is an audit trail.
Tonight's live re-check — October 15, 2026, ~20:25 EDT
| Probe | Result |
|---|---|
GET verdict.scriptmasterlabs.com/health | 200 — {"status":"ok","integrationsConfigured":true} |
GET verdict.scriptmasterlabs.com/.well-known/agent.json | Status LIVE_SETTLEMENT_VERIFIED; /decide $0.25 USDC BYOK, /seal $0.01, network eip155:8453, payTo 0x5bbd32e0478e49a7540ef2d760e0b0f9aa6328b2 |
POST /decide, no payment | HTTP 402 in 0.71s — a price quote. No payment was made in this probe. |
POST squeezeos-api.onrender.com/api/jury-eval, no payment | HTTP 402 quoting $0.25 — amount 250000, USDC asset 0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913, network eip155:8453, same payTo |
| Documented example output in agent.json | Labeled example (zeroed receipt ID in the source): majority WAIT, disagreement 0.2 — four WAIT votes at probabilities 0.40–0.44 plus one SKEPTIC NO_TRADE at 0.38, approved: false |
What the shutout proves — and what it does not
Strength, from the same data: the jury fails closed. Handed a neutral capsule with no risk context, five independent juror roles converged on WAIT instead of manufacturing an approval, and the refusal was minted as a signed receipt that survives replay without a second charge. That is the behavior you want standing in front of real capital.
Weakness, from the same data: this is an n=1 public record, and the capsule was neutral by design — WAIT was the expected outcome, so the shutout proves discipline, not discrimination. No approved: true verdict receipt has been published, so the public record cannot yet show the jury saying yes; and order-bearing decisions still require a risk-context service that is not configured — the launch is decision-only. Contrast our uncalibrated harness gate, which scored a $0.004 call and a $12,000 reroute identically: failing closed is necessary, but it is not yet judgment. The jury layer is where the judgment is supposed to live — and its published evidence base is exactly one receipt deep.
Do it yourself
- Check the live status:
curl https://verdict.scriptmasterlabs.com/.well-known/agent.json— look forLIVE_SETTLEMENT_VERIFIEDand the $0.25 / $0.01 tiers. - Probe the price without paying: POST to
https://verdict.scriptmasterlabs.com/decidewith an empty body. A 402 quoting $0.25 is a quote, not a charge — nothing settles. - Verify the launch receipt: match receipt ID
a987aba4-d322-4087-9d09-161e9965940aand settlement tx0xfa3ec31f…f6f1cagainst the record on the Verdict Protocol page and any Base explorer. - Apply the replay test to any verdict service: resend an identical signed request. A receipt system returns the same receipt and the same transaction. If a retry charges twice, it is not a receipt system.
Claim Receipts
| Claim | Source |
|---|---|
| 5-0 WAIT shutout, receipt ID + hash, approved: false by design | Verdict Protocol launch record, 2026-10-12 (HANDOFF.md, launch-completion section) |
| $0.25 settlement tx + replay with no second charge; $0.01 seal tx, block 52522552, status 0x1 | Same launch record; seal tx re-verified on-chain 2026-10-14 |
| Live status, prices, payTo, 402 timings tonight | Direct curl probes this run, 2026-10-15 ~20:25 EDT (single measurements, not averages) |
| Example-output vote probabilities (0.38–0.44, disagreement 0.2) | agent.json bazaar example — labeled example in the source, never presented here as a real receipt |