This question relates to the result of the Rootclaim challenge: 

https://manifold.markets/chrisjbillington/will-bsp9000-win-the-rootclaim-chal

Rootclaim published an 89% likelihood that the COVID-19 pandemic began as a leak of an engineered virus from a research laboratory. A debate was held in front of two judges asked to determine if the likelihood was over or under 50%. What did the judges believe the likelihood to be following the debate?

tl;dr The probability associated with this market is "37% chance" for the past few hours. If the result is announced anytime in the next few hours, the result will be compared to a 2.6-logit 

 (2.6 = 13/5) in lab-leak probability from 89% to about 99.1%. If judges agree with numbers in Rootclaim's final presentation, the market resolves "NO" and if judges find "lab leak" even a bit less likely that Rootclaim or more, the market resolves "YES".

It was requested, but not required, that judges give a number to estimate the relative probability of the 2 Covid origin theories.

Regarding the expected timing of announcing the result, 

For reasons outside of my control, I am unfortunately unable to share the outcome of the Rootclaim debate at this time. The expected date of publication is now February 18th.

At that time, the median likelihood of this market the 24-hour period prior to the announcement will be calculated to determine the reference value, X. This will be compared to Y, the average shift in likelihoods given by judges, relative to Rootclaim's public 89% probability, measured in logits.

If X is less than 50+5*Y then the market resolves YES. The factor of 5 is quasi arbitrary to make a wide range of reasonable prices that includes Rootclaim's likelihoods given during the debate (circa 99.5%) as well as equally low likelihoods.

Here are some examples for when both judges give equal likelihoods or when one judge gives a decision without a likelihood.