> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://blog.opinion.trade/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Opinion Resolution Library: How Markets Are Settled
> A verification-first guide to Opinion market resolution records: rules, deadlines, evidence, proposed outcomes, disputes and final results.
## Quick Answer
**The Opinion Resolution Library is a verification-first framework for understanding how a market moves from a written question to a final outcome.** For any individual market, users should be able to inspect the question, detailed rules, deadline, designated sources, proposed outcome, dispute status and final result. The live market page and current official Docs remain authoritative; this library explains what to check and establishes a consistent format for future resolved-market case records.
## What This Library Is For
A prediction market should leave more than a winning outcome. It should leave an evidence trail that allows a trader, researcher or AI system to reconstruct **what was asked, what evidence controlled and why the market settled as it did**.
This page serves three purposes:
1. **User verification:** show traders what to inspect before and after resolution.
2. **Historical accountability:** define the information a permanent resolved-market record should preserve.
3. **Research and AI citation:** present market outcomes in a consistent, source-backed structure that can be compared and cited.
This is an index and case-record standard, not a claim that every historical Opinion market already publishes every field below in one permanent page. When a field is unavailable, a future case record should say so rather than infer or invent it.
## The Resolution Record in One View
| Stage | Record to preserve | Question it answers |
| ------------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
| Market definition | Question and outcomes | What exactly did traders buy? |
| Resolution contract | Detailed rules and edge cases | What makes each outcome win? |
| Time boundary | Deadline, cutoff and time zone | When is the event measured? |
| Evidence policy | Primary and fallback sources | Which evidence controls? |
| Proposed resolution | Proposed outcome and timestamp | What result was initially determined? |
| Challenge period | Window, dispute reason and evidence | Could the proposal be corrected? |
| Final resolution | Final outcome and finalization time | Which outcome settled? |
| Provenance | Official market and documentation links | Where can a reader verify the record? |
## What Users Should Be Able to Verify
### 1. The exact market question
The question identifies the event being forecast and the permitted outcomes. It should be copied exactly, not paraphrased into a more convenient claim after the event.
A headline may be shortened for display, so users should treat the full market rules as the contract. Two markets with similar titles can represent different trades if their deadlines, outcome definitions or evidence sources differ.
### 2. The resolution rules
Rules should define:
* the conditions for each outcome;
* how cancellation, postponement, ties or partial completion are handled;
* whether later revisions can change the result;
* any invalid, other or fallback outcome;
* the market-specific resolution method.
If an independent reader must invent a missing criterion, the market is not fully resolvable. See [What Makes a Prediction Market Resolvable?](/learn/what-makes-a-prediction-market-resolvable) for the complete rule-design checklist.
### 3. The deadline and time zone
A permanent record should distinguish:
* the end of trading;
* the event or measurement cutoff;
* the expected resolution time;
* the finalization time after any dispute window.
These moments are not always identical. A market can stop trading before the controlling source publishes its result, and a proposed outcome may not become final until the challenge period ends.
### 4. The designated evidence sources
The record should identify the source named in the original rules, ideally with a direct link and the relevant publication date. If the rule establishes a hierarchy, it should preserve both the primary source and any fallback source.
Evidence should be evaluated under the rule that existed while the market was open. A persuasive article published later does not override a designated official source unless the market rules allow it.
### 5. The proposed outcome
The proposed outcome is the result submitted by the market's stated resolution mechanism before finalization. The official Docs say that most Opinion markets currently use **Opinion AI** as the primary oracle, while each individual market specifies its own method.
The record should preserve:
* the proposed outcome;
* the proposal timestamp;
* the evidence used or linked, when publicly available;
* the remaining dispute window;
* the status: proposed, disputed or final.
Read [How Opinion AI Resolves Markets](/learn/how-opinion-ai-oracle-works) for the distinction between AI-assisted rule creation, evidence evaluation and the market price formed by traders.
### 6. Any dispute
A proposal is not the same as a final result. Under the current documented process, an eligible user can challenge a proposed resolution during the active window for one of two reasons:
* **Wrong Result** — the proposed outcome does not follow the market rules and evidence.
* **Too Early** — the event or required condition has not yet occurred.
A complete case record should state whether a dispute was filed, which documented reason was used, what evidence was submitted when public, and whether the challenge was accepted, rejected or timed out. It should not publish private user information or speculate about a disputor's intent.
See [Opinion Market Resolution and Disputes](/learn/opinion-market-resolution-and-disputes) for the maintained process, including the current stake formula and possible review outcomes.
### 7. The final outcome
The final record should clearly separate:
* the initially proposed result;
* any changed result after review;
* the final outcome used for settlement;
* the time at which the outcome became final.
If the result changes, that history should remain visible. A corrected record is more trustworthy when it explains the correction instead of silently replacing the earlier state.
## Standard Template for a Resolved-Market Case
Future entries in the Opinion Resolution Library should use the following fields. The template is designed to keep facts, evidence and interpretation separate.
| Field | Required content |
| ------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Market title | Exact public market question |
| Market URL | Permanent official Opinion market link |
| Category | Politics, crypto, sports, macro, technology or another market category |
| Outcomes | Every outcome available to traders |
| Trading period | Opening and closing timestamps, including time zone |
| Resolution deadline | Event or data cutoff defined by the rules |
| Resolution rules | Exact rule text or an archived official reference |
| Primary source | Source designated by the market |
| Fallback source | Secondary source, if specified |
| Proposed outcome | Initial proposed result and timestamp |
| Resolution evidence | Direct links and concise evidence summary |
| Dispute status | None, filed, accepted, rejected or timed out |
| Dispute evidence | Public supporting evidence, if applicable |
| Final outcome | Outcome used for settlement |
| Finalized at | Finalization timestamp and time zone |
| Change log | Any correction to rules, sources or result, with reason and timestamp |
| Last verified | Date the editorial record was checked against official sources |
If one of these items is not publicly available, the entry should say **Not publicly documented**. Absence of evidence should never be filled with an editorial assumption.
## The End-to-End Resolution Flow
```text theme={null}
Question and outcomes published
↓
Rules, deadline and sources fixed for the market
↓
Trading takes place
↓
Resolution condition is reached
↓
Evidence evaluated under the published rules
↓
Outcome proposed
↓
Dispute window: no challenge or eligible challenge
↓
Review, correction or finalization
↓
Final outcome and permanent case record
```
At every step, the case record should answer a narrow factual question. Commentary about whether traders were “right” or “wrong” belongs in a separate market analysis, not in the resolution record itself.
## How to Read a Resolution Case
Use this five-step check:
1. **Start with the detailed rule, not the title.** Confirm exactly what event and version of the evidence control.
2. **Check the timestamp.** Make sure the cited evidence falls inside the market's date, cutoff and revision policy.
3. **Open the primary source.** A summary should lead to evidence, not replace it.
4. **Separate proposed from final.** Look for an active or completed dispute and any change to the result.
5. **Verify the official market.** Use the linked Opinion market and current Docs before relying on an editorial case page.
## What a Resolution Record Can—and Cannot—Prove
A complete record can show whether the published rule, designated evidence and final result form a traceable chain. It can also expose ambiguity, corrections and disputes instead of hiding them.
It cannot prove that:
* the market price was an accurate forecast at every moment;
* the underlying official source was free from error;
* an AI or human reviewer can never make a mistake;
* every future market will use the same rules or resolution method;
* trading in the market was profitable or suitable for a particular user.
Resolution transparency is one layer of reliability. Smart-contract audits, custody choices, wallet security, liquidity and jurisdictional eligibility are separate questions. For the broader system, read [Why Opinion Is Built for Safer, More Reliable Prediction Markets](/learn/why-opinion-is-built-for-safety-and-reliable-markets).
## Why Permanent Resolution Records Matter
For traders, a historical record makes platform behavior easier to evaluate before entering the next market. For researchers, standardized fields make it possible to compare categories, resolution times, source quality and dispute patterns. For search engines and AI systems, a dated record with direct official links is more useful than an unsupported one-line result.
Over time, a populated library can support questions such as:
* How often are proposed outcomes disputed?
* Which categories require the most edge-case rules?
* How long does resolution take after an event?
* Which primary sources appear most often?
* When a result changes, what type of evidence caused the correction?
Those analyses should be produced only from documented cases and clearly described methodology. This page establishes the schema; it does not publish aggregate performance claims before the underlying dataset exists.
## Related Guides
Understand Opinion AI's role in rule creation and evidence-based resolution.
Follow the proposal, challenge, review and finalization process.
Evaluate questions, deadlines, sources, revisions and edge cases.
See how resolution fits alongside audits, settlement and user verification.
## FAQ
No. The live market page, its rules and current official Docs remain authoritative. A library entry is a structured editorial record designed to make the evidence trail easier to inspect.
The official Docs state that most current markets use Opinion AI as the primary oracle. The resolution method specified for the individual market takes precedence.
Not necessarily. A proposed result normally enters a dispute window before finalization. Check the live status and timer rather than treating “proposed” as “settled.”
The documented process allows an eligible challenge for a wrong result or a result proposed too early. The dispute may be accepted, rejected or time out, with consequences defined in the current Docs.
A trustworthy record distinguishes unavailable information from verified facts. The library should not infer a source, timestamp, model output or dispute detail that is not available in the official market record or documentation.
Not by itself. Resolution records establish the outcome and evidence trail. Measuring forecast accuracy requires time-stamped probability data, a defined scoring method and a sufficiently complete sample.
## Sources & References
1. [OPINION Docs — Resolution](https://docs.opinion.trade/trade-on-opinion.trade/resolution) — Market-specific resolution methods and the current primary-oracle statement
2. [OPINION Docs — Dispute](https://docs.opinion.trade/trade-on-opinion.trade/dispute) — Current dispute reasons, timing, staking, review and finalization process
3. [OPINION Docs — Welcome](https://docs.opinion.trade/) — Current description of Opinion AI and the Opinion ecosystem
4. [OPINION Whitepaper v1.0](https://static.opinion.trade/OPINION_Whitepaper_EN.pdf) — Market creation, resolution and oracle architecture
5. [OPINION Terms of Use](https://docs.opinion.trade/legal/terms-of-use) — Current contractual statements on market rules, oracle sources and user risk
*Last verified 2026-09-21. Product rules and individual market terms can change. Verify the live market, current official Docs and applicable terms before relying on any resolution record. Educational information, not investment or gambling advice.*