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 increase (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".

Per @PeterMillerc030:

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, @PeterMillerc030 most recently wrote:

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.

The question resolves at time time that:

1. Both judges estimated likelihoods (or decision not to give an estimate) are published, or, if sooner,

2. Two weeks after the overall result is announced, and

3. Any judge not providing a probability will be assigned likelihood of 50% if undecided, 89% if decided in favor of Rootclaim (>50%), and 11% if deciding in favor of Peter Miller (<50%).

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.

I will not participate in this market.

Some contingencies:

• "Announcement" means results are public, unambiguously acknowledged to be true by Peter Miller and/or Rootclaim, and neither party unambiguously states that the results are false.

• I will try to check in on this daily and resolve as quickly as I can. It's conceivable that the precise timing of the announcement will be somewhat ambiguous and I will take up to 24 hours consider any arguments in the comments regarding correct timing.

• If results are published less than 24 hours after posting, the median price over the entire history of the market will be used.

• I'm not entirely clear on which likelihoods judges were asked to give; I will calculate the most similar quantity possible to: "likelihood the COVID-19 pandemic originated as a lab leak of an engineered virus, normalized by the sum of likelihoods of scenarios considered by the judges." This will handle the case where judges were asked to compare "zoonosis" to "engineered virus lab leak" without considering other scenarios, but 89% will still be used as the reference.

• I will check back later today and resolve NA if I screwed up something fundamentally and erase this bullet point if not.

Edits since posting:

• More detail in figure axes labels for examples

• Added tl;dr