Ceasefire definition per Metaculus:

• Temporary ceasefires count, as do humanitarian pauses, so long as they extend to the entire conflict. For example, a humanitarian pause in certain regions or corridors would not be sufficient.

• The ceasefire does not actually need to begin, so long as there are credible reports that a ceasefire agreement has been reached between Israel and Hamas.

Rafah invasion definition:

This market will resolve to “Yes” if the New York Times or WSJ unequivocally report that Israel has initiated a ground invasion of Rafah.

Reports of air strikes, raids, covert operations, incursions, etc will not be sufficient to resolve this market to "Yes." In general, ambiguous situations in which the NYT or WSJ do not use the word "invasion" will not be sufficient to resolve this market.

The "Other" option exists to cover unknown unknowns, and should resolve NO in most circumstances.

Clarification on recent events:

Multiple NYT reporters have started to use the word "invasion" somewhat interchangeably with with the less-controversial terms "offensive", "campaign", "assault", and "operation".

This is a significant development for this market's resolution, but it is also a clear example of equivocation.

From Google/Oxford:

e·quiv·o·ca·tion

noun

The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

"I say this without equivocation"

This market requires unequivocal reporting of an invasion, in contrast to reporting which distinguishes the current operation from an invasion or reporting which equivocates on the issue. Please keep this definition of equivocation in mind when deciding how to trade on this market.

Examples of sufficient-but-not-necessary conditions for this market to resolve to "invasion":

• The headline (the large-font text) of any non-opinion article featured on the NYT Israel-Hamas Page or the WSJ Middle-East Page clearly describes Israel's actions in Rafah with the word "invasion", and is not quoting someone else. This resolves YES regardless of if the sub-headline (the smaller font text) uses another word instead of invasion.

• The headline of any such article does not use the word invasion, but the sub-headline does call Israel's actions an invasion and the article itself emphasizes that choice, using the word "invasion" many times and more than any of the other terms they have used as a substitute.

• Regardless of use of the word "invasion", the NYT or the WSJ unambiguously report in more than one article that the conflict has now escalated into the long-anticipated "full-scale" military action. This reporting must make it clear that new events are a major escalation from what has previously been often called as a "limited operation".