The New Hampshire primary was held a week and a half ago, and yet different sources give different answers about how many delegates were won by Trump and Haley. According to this AP article, Trump won 13 delegates to Nikki Haley's 9: https://apnews.com/article/new-hampshire-delegates-trump-haley-2ec296dd0f14bfd03db4b284b722c49a
However, early reports of the delegate count said it was 12 to 10, and many still claim this. This even led me to resolve a market on the subject to "12", which I will now probably have to re-resolve to "13".
Here is a list of delegate trackers I found that say Trump won 13 delegates and Haley won 9:
https://www.wsj.com/election/2024/primary/state/new-hampshire
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/republican-delegate-count/
However, ABC/538's delegate tracker says that Trump has 12 and Haley has 10:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-republican-delegate-benchmarks/
Wikipedia also claims this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_New_Hampshire_Republican_presidential_primary#Results
Those two, as well as The Green Papers, are what led me to initially resolve my market to 12 instead of 13.
In addition to the disagreeing sources, there are a few that still list it as 12-9, leaving the allocation of the last delegate a mystery:
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/PRIMARIES/gkplxymmwpb/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-primary-elections/delegate-tracker
Google searching "gop new hampshire primary" currently still shows this as the result.
This market resolves YES if the linked delegate trackers at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Des Moine Register, NPR, Washington Post, ABC/538, Reuters, and NBC, as well as the linked Wikipedia article on the New Hampshire primary, all show the same numbers of delegates allocated from New Hampshire on or before the date of the Republican South Carolina primary (scheduled for Feb. 24). This means they must show the same number allocated to both Trump and Haley, so even if ABC and Wikipedia remove the tenth Haley delegate from their trackers, but some sources still show the last delegate as unallocated, that will still count as an inconsistency.*
It still counts as YES if the sources show inconsistent results at midnight on the 24th but correct them before the end of the day. I will try to check the trackers close to midnight on the 25th if they aren't already consistent by then to see if they have been made consistent. I will use Central Time to determine when the day ends.
If one of the sources goes down permanently, then I will give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that it would have been consistent with the others had it still been up. If one goes down temporarily, I will base the results on whether it's consistent with what the other sources said on 2/24 once it comes back up, even if it doesn't come back up until after 2/24.
Also, note that even though I mentioned them in this market, the AP article, my own market on the subject, the results on The Green Papers, and the results that show up from a Google search don't have to be consistent with the others for this market to resolve YES. That's because the AP article is just a static article, not a dynamic tracker, so there's not as high of an expectation for it to change if new contradictory info comes out, the Google search result isn't even an article but is just the thing that pops up when you google something, which people should know to double-check anyway, and the other two aren't really major sources (plus, I'm not sure if the Green Papers updates its results pages or not).
*There is one exception to this: If one of the delegate trackers stops updating and puts a warning on the web page saying that it is no longer updating, then I will not count it as inconsistent if its results are behind those of other sources in the sense that they haven't allocated the last delegate. However, I would still count it as inconsistent if that source's numbers for allocated delegates are inconsistent with those of other sources, so saying it's 12-10 when other sources say 13-9 would still count as a contradiction.
1,000
3.00NBC, ABC/538, and Wikipedia have all updated to show the correct delegate count of 13 - 9. This means there are no longer any sources showing an incorrect count (i.e., incorrectly stating that a tenth delegate went to Haley), but Reuters still has an incomplete count of 12 - 9. So it all comes down to whether Reuters will update their tracker on time.