delphi.question.published
Appended 15 Aug 2026, 15:53 UTC. Its place in the chain is fixed by the hash of the entry before it; what follows is whether that place is covered by a signature.
The entry
- sequence_
number - 52
- entry_
type delphi.question.published- entity_
type forecast_question - entity_
id 07df80b9-b32c-4db8-ad24-19034793b27c- logged_
at 2026-08-15T15:53:37.282750+00:00- previous_
hash 99f2482d09a254bc9fc4421563f50972742d77079c0d6401acc46d7cf925d4c9- payload_
hash 4cc4a1b78aa7d2cb4e17bec0088ee2507eede3e991a1ed045b1d06c99430ea2b- entry_
hash 56b3ac781722cdb919ccb71672442d10e30e9b6764d81dba36ac549b8b3951a3
sourceGET /api/transparency/entries/{n}· one entry, as served to this reader· payload served
Payload
{
"slug": "will-copernicus-rank-2026-among-the-three-warmest-calendar-years-in-its-record",
"title": "Will Copernicus rank 2026 among the three warmest calendar years in its record?",
"origin": "EDITORIAL",
"timebase": {
"clock": "REAL_UTC"
},
"closes_at": "2026-12-15T22:00:00.000000Z",
"opened_at": "2026-08-15T15:53:37.279942Z",
"blind_mode": true,
"provenance": "PUBLIC_RECORD",
"description": "The longest question in this batch by design. It closes in December and resolves in January, so it is the one question whose forecasters commit before a full quarter of the evidence exists.",
"question_id": "07df80b9-b32c-4db8-ad24-19034793b27c",
"resolution_criteria": "YES if the Copernicus annual climate bulletin for 2026 places the year first, second or third warmest in the ERA5 record.",
"expected_resolution_at": "2027-01-15T12:00:00.000000Z",
"canonical_source_policy": "Copernicus climate bulletin at https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-bulletin, annual summary for 2026.",
"resolution_rule_revision": 1
}Shown indented so it can be read. The hash is taken over the canonical form of the same object — keys sorted by code point, no insignificant whitespace, UTF-8 rather than escaped ASCII, timestamps RFC 3339 in UTC to microseconds, decimals as their plain string form. The check below re-encodes the object canonically before hashing it, which is why an indented display cannot make it pass or fail.
Verify it here
Recomputing the hashes in this browser… If this sentence stays, this browser has no Web Crypto and nothing here has been verified locally.
The proof, as served
- leaf_
index - 52
- tree_
size - 181
- leaf_
hash 6a55cd61374c5748c6856568b821a942fb27081ab74ef126eefe7252cf2b3a4f- audit_
path (8) 0: 79464833810f04c3dd2ab15f23f431e96acb241697ce02066af252bdd5449caf1: fbaf46c02756886d51e7eceebd72112b50bdf934e7f697b806cf4f5be734f8162: 2c888ed5658ad74af4eec38d1bf83a7f45f6f309547e37a50916a13b27e43a743: 59b626cca7986be0b6ec44fe0d4d89e3fdbd22110dbe11bf0c1a9d22fcaf178b4: 2470c45a41e5b2338cd0a79e1b28f402a0e7e23251bee7ed256b2f8f028ccbe75: 0dec549ee6527dafc0e801068f2df8c4eef8fcb9972397c6eb58217673bbfe9c6: 432b3bec17cc8d9bd118f5d2d11fc56d0578ec1940af60be2192f2f1b8d43dc67: 9635acfeb8c2590a96fbee35cfdc30839f075e00ba35b025d06547731fc18743- root_
hash 4c26c3ce818fe1e45410fef48bf0969b94f9e5bc0389388f5310d968c2e42fdc
The earliest published head that covers this entry
No published tree head covers this entry yet, so there is nothing signed to check it against. That is the ordinary state of an entry appended since the last checkpoint, and it is neither a failure nor a permanent one.
sourceGET /api/transparency/proof/inclusion· leaf_hash, audit_path, root_hash· audit-path nodes: 8