Hunts hackathons and prize challenges. Verification is fail-closed by design: does the official platform actually host this event's source — not a news article about the program. Almost the entire trust burden lives in the gate; what's left is claim-effort-vs-payout sizing, a Strategist argument, not a Skeptic one.
Every domain decides its own gate-hard/debate-argued split by how deterministically checkable a risk actually is. For hackathons, "is this real and entrable" is checkable: the platform hosts the listing, the deadline is in the future, the prize pool is documented, the rules say who may enter. What remains for the debate to argue — mostly whether the paperwork is worth the confirmed payout, and watching for the one real scam pattern in this space: fee-charging "recovery services" that attach themselves to a real, free claim.
The Settlement-Claims Scout found five real, currently-open FTC refund programs and correctly cited only
the official ftc.gov page for each — so all five verified, legitimately, not from miscalibration.
The full pipeline ran end to end on real data: the Ranker scored payout size and certainty, the debate's
Skeptic correctly flagged Zelle-payout phishing risk as the actual residual concern for this domain (a real,
well-documented fraud pattern), the deterministic mission picked the top 3 within budget, and the digest
rendered cleanly.