Actually I should have asked before trading. Consensus on what?

• The answer to the question itself or

• That the resolution procedure for the market was followed?

@ShitakiIntaki Clear consensus between the professionals on the answer, so if three mathematicians are asked all three should agree that it is >50% and not 1/36 or vice versa.

@Sailfish okay, so would this be a fair paraphrasing?
Will the Snake Eyes market adjudication resolve by [unanimous] decision? or greater than a super majority? a 2:1 split is theoretically a super majority but it is also the least amount to be a majority. a 2:3 decision could be considered close, but 4:1 or 5:0 are a bit more decisive.

But this market is asking about the quality of consensus amongst the adjudicators.

@ShitakiIntaki It's vague in part because it isn't clear what the structure of the "official resolution" will be. There should be a strong claim by nearly all of the mathematicians that one answer is correct and the other is wrong. 4/5 might be fine, 3/4 probably is not sufficient. This market intends to capture if the "official resolution" will actually return information sufficient to resolve the original market in either direction.

@Sailfish I agree that the official resolution is lacking specificity at this time.

What if it is just a sole mathematician ? The decision would be unanimous but there was no need to seek consensus.

I think the logistics of getting a sizable committee of mathematicians is onerous and beyond what most any market resolution would require.

So assuming that it would be a rather small sample, "clear consensus" probably ends up being unanimous.