This market resolves Yes if the rules of the senate are in their current (November 1st, 2025) position as of February 20th, 2027. If the nuclear option is used to change or suspend the rule in between now and then, this market can still resolve Yes if the old normal is formally re-asserted before resolution. This market is concerned with the rule as it applies to general acts of congress, not to previously expanded executive and SCOTUS nominations. That said, those partial reductions in the rule would be enough for a No resolution had this market covered those time periods. Feel free to ask clarifying questions in the comments!
Update 2025-11-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Criteria for partial carve-outs counting as material changes (resolving No):
If the carve-out is close to as important as a SCOTUS appointment
If the carve-out is close to as frequent as the lesser appointments allowed in 2013 forward
If the carve-out applies to legislation as big as the ACA or another piece of major historic legislature
If deathly ambiguous, creator will consult divested mods
1,000@BenM If it's close to as important as a SCOTUS appointment, or close to as frequent as the lesser appointments allowed in 2013 forward, it would definitely count for No. If it's deathly ambiguous, I'll ask some divested mods. If it's as big as tha ACA or another piece of major historic legislature, that would be big enough to count for No.