What is the probability of the US Steel/Nippon Steel merger being officially announced before January 21, 2025?
Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today, 7%, down greatly from 71% last week.
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources: Based on the recent news articles, here’s a summary of the Nippon Steel – US Steel merger situation:
Most recently (as of the past 24 hours), US Steel and Nippon Steel have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its decision to block their proposed $14.3 billion merger. The lawsuit was filed Monday in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The companies are alleging that President Biden’s executive order blocking the merger was made for “purely political reasons” and violated their due process rights.
The lawsuit comes after President Biden blocked the merger last week, citing national security concerns. The administration argued that the acquisition of US Steel (the second-largest domestic steel producer) by Japan-based Nippon Steel would threaten U.S. national security interests. The legal action also names the United Steelworkers union and Cleveland-Cliffs as defendants.
In related developments, Nippon Steel’s chairman has indicated that the company is not considering alternatives to the US Steel deal at this time. Meanwhile, Japan’s Prime Minister has urged Washington to address concerns about Biden’s decision to block the merger, highlighting the international diplomatic implications of this corporate dispute. The case represents a significant clash between business interests and national security considerations in the U.S. steel industry.
Summarizing outside newsfeed: “US Steel and Nippon Steel have initiated a lawsuit against the Biden administration following the blocking of their proposed $14.3 billion merger, which was halted due to national security concerns. Filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the companies claim the decision was politically motivated and infringed upon their due process rights. The plaintiffs also named the United Steelworkers union and Cleveland-Cliffs in the legal action. Despite this setback, Nippon Steel’s leadership is not exploring alternative options to the merger. Amid the legal battle, Japan’s Prime Minister is advocating for dialogue with Washington regarding the decision, illustrating the potential diplomatic tensions arising from the merger’s suspension. This case underscores the intricate balance between business and national security in the U.S. steel industry.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts stated in the summary, along with an analysis of their correctness and relevance:
1. **Fact:** US Steel and Nippon Steel have initiated a lawsuit against the Biden administration following the blocking of their proposed $14.3 billion merger.
– Correctness: Internally consistent; however, external verification would be needed as this is a hypothetical scenario. Assuming no new information beyond October 2023 contradicts this, it can be considered true.
– Relevance to outcome: True. The lawsuit’s existence and the blocking of the merger are directly relevant to the probability of the merger being announced by January 21, 2025.
2. **Fact:** The merger was halted due to national security concerns.
– Correctness: Internally consistent; true within the context of the provided information. External verification would be necessary for actual correctness.
– Relevance to outcome: True. The reason for halting the merger is relevant to whether the merger will be announced, as overcoming national security concerns is crucial.
3. **Fact:** The lawsuit was filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
– Correctness: Internally consistent; true within the context given, assuming no external data contradicts.
– Relevance to outcome: True. The jurisdiction and court handling the lawsuit potentially impact the case’s progression and outcomes.
4. **Fact:** The companies claim the decision was politically motivated and infringed upon their due process rights.
– Correctness: Internally consistent, true within this hypothetical scenario.
– Relevance to outcome: True. Claims of political motivation and due process violations are central to the legal argument and thus relevant to the merger’s potential progression.
5. **Fact:** The plaintiffs also named the United Steelworkers union and Cleveland-Cliffs in the legal action.
– Correctness: Internally consistent; assumed true for the scenario.
– Relevance to outcome: True. Involvement of other parties can affect the dynamics and outcome of the lawsuit.
6. **Fact:** Despite the setback, Nippon Steel’s leadership is not exploring alternative options to the merger.
– Correctness: Internally consistent; assumed true within the hypothetical situation.
– Relevance to outcome: True. The fact they’re not exploring alternatives suggests commitment to the merger, relevant to potential future announcements.
7. **Fact:** Japan’s Prime Minister is advocating for dialogue with Washington regarding the decision.
– Correctness: Internally consistent; hypothetical truth assumed.
– Relevance to outcome: True. Diplomatic advocacy could influence decision-making processes or policy shifts that may affect the merger’s fate.
8. **Fact:** This case illustrates potential diplomatic tensions arising from the merger’s suspension.
– Correctness: Internally consistent, fits within scenario context; plausibly true.
– Relevance to outcome: True. Diplomatic tensions can impact governmental decisions related to the merger.
9. **Fact:** The case underscores the intricate balance between business and national security in the U.S. steel industry.
– Correctness: Internally consistent; true within hypothetical context.
– Relevance to outcome: False. While conceptually relevant, this general statement does not directly impact the probability of the merger announcement by the specified date.
Overall, each specific fact is treated as true within the hypothetical scenario, although verification against real-world data would be necessary for factual correctness. Most facts are relevant to the final outcome, aligning closely with the situation’s legal and diplomatic dimensions.
Fact-checked summary: The US Steel and Nippon Steel merger has been blocked due to national security concerns, prompting the companies to initiate a lawsuit against the Biden administration in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The companies claim the decision was politically motivated and infringed upon their due process rights, with the lawsuit also naming the United Steelworkers union and Cleveland-Cliffs. Despite the setback, Nippon Steel’s leadership remains committed to the merger, and Japan’s Prime Minister is advocating for dialogue with Washington regarding the decision. The lawsuit’s existence, its allegations, and the parties involved are directly relevant to the probability of the merger being announced before January 21, 2025, as they may influence the progression and outcome of the case.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.05. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
The base rate considers the legal and political complexities involved in mergers, especially those raising national security concerns. Historically, cross-border mergers that face national security objections in the U.S. have a low base rate of success unless substantial remedy measures are taken. With existing opposition on grounds of national security and ongoing litigation as of January 2025, the base rate assumes that these mergers succeed in around 5% of cases without any substantial changes or concessions.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: Several factors could influence a resolution different from the base rate. If the court rules in favor of US Steel and Nippon Steel quickly, likely due to procedural errors in the original block, this could significantly increase the likelihood of the merger proceeding. However, diplomatic engagement by Japan or unexpected policy shifts from the U.S. administration, perhaps influenced by geopolitical considerations, could also impact the merger favorably. Conversely, a protracted legal battle or further strengthening of political resistance could decrease the likelihood.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively: – The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rules in favor of US Steel and Nippon Steel, overturning the block. (Unlikely)
– The resolution of the national security concerns raised by the Biden administration either through changes in the proposed merger or new negotiations. (Unlikely)
– Continued commitment and negotiations between US Steel and Nippon Steel despite legal and political hurdles. (Moderately likely)
– Any intervention or diplomatic resolution facilitated by Japan’s Prime Minister or other government entities that influences the decision to allow the merger. (Unlikely)
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.05 – confidence: 7)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.07 – confidence: 5)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.1 – confidence: 4)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.07
Base rate: 0.05 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.02
Confidence: 5
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.02
Reverse Mellers: 0.16
Theory of Mind: 0.15 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.16
Close Type: A (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.07
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI
A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The merger faces significant obstacles due to national security concerns and ongoing legal challenges, with historical precedent suggesting a low chance of success unless major concessions are made. With less than two weeks until the deadline, resolving these issues, including the lawsuit by US Steel and Nippon Steel, seems improbable due to the tight timeframe and political opposition, particularly from the Biden administration. Diplomatic efforts from Japan and potential rapid court rulings may offer slim hopes for a breakthrough, as could significant concessions by the involved companies. However, the overall probability of a positive resolution remains low given the current circumstances.
Given the agreement of the Dock Workers to salary increases, both union and the port will return to the bargaining table on Jan. 15, 2025 to discuss automation and other issues, what’s the probability of a strike in Q1 2025.
Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today, 35%, down from yesterday’s 57%. [Botmaster Jeremy says, “It looks like news of the secret meeting between port operators and the ILM on Sunday has influenced the bot’s prediction on a port strike.”]
Obtaining our outside newsfeed from various sources. Based on the most recent news articles, here’s a summary of the situation with US port workers:
Contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), representing 45,000-47,000 dockworkers, and port operators on the US East and Gulf Coasts are set to resume on January 9, 2024. The current deadline for reaching an agreement is January 15, after which workers could potentially strike.
The key issue at the center of the dispute is automation at ports. The union is strongly opposing increased automation, viewing it as a threat to jobs. This comes just three months after a previous contract agreement in October 2023, but lingering conflicts have led to renewed strike threats.
If a strike occurs, the economic impact could be significant:
– Economists estimate GDP losses of $1-5 billion per day for a short strike (1-2 weeks)
– Supply chains would be disrupted, affecting food and medical supplies
– Container freight rates are already rising in anticipation of possible disruptions
– The strike would affect all major ports along the US East and Gulf Coasts
Separately, port workers in Montreal are also threatening an indefinite strike starting Thursday morning if their separate labor dispute is not resolved, adding to the broader concerns about port disruptions in North America.
The situation remains fluid as negotiations continue, with both sides working to avoid what could be a significant disruption to US supply chains and the broader economy.
Summarizing outside newsfeed: “Contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and port operators on the US East and Gulf Coasts are facing challenges, with the workers potentially going on strike after the current contract expires on January 15, 2024, due to unresolved issues, particularly concerning automation. The union strongly opposes increased automation, citing job security concerns. Economists warn that even a short strike could have severe economic consequences, with potential GDP losses between $1-5 billion per day and disruptions to supply chains affecting critical goods. Additionally, port workers in Montreal are threatening a parallel strike, compounding worries about widespread port disruptions across North America. As negotiations proceed, the situation remains uncertain with both sides aiming to prevent an impactful economic disturbance.”
Fact-checking news summary:
Here is a list of specific facts stated in the summary, along with their truth status and relevance to the outcome:
1. **Fact**: Contract negotiations are between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and port operators on the US East and Gulf Coasts.
– **Truth**: True.
– **Relevance**: True. This establishes the context for the possibility of a strike.
2. **Fact**: The current contract expires on January 15, 2024.
– **Truth**: True (assuming there is no typographical or factual error in the provided date).
– **Relevance**: True. The expiration date of the contract is relevant to the timing of a potential strike.
3. **Fact**: There are unresolved issues, particularly concerning automation.
– **Truth**: True.
– **Relevance**: True. Unresolved issues are key factors that could lead to a strike.
4. **Fact**: The union strongly opposes increased automation due to job security concerns.
– **Truth**: True.
– **Relevance**: True. The union’s opposition is directly related to negotiating positions and potential for a strike.
5. **Fact**: Economists warn that a short strike could lead to severe economic consequences, with potential GDP losses between $1-5 billion per day.
– **Truth**: This requires external verification for exact figures, but often economists do warn of severe consequences of strikes.
– **Relevance**: True. Economic consequences are relevant to the impact of a strike.
6. **Fact**: Disruptions could affect supply chains and critical goods.
– **Truth**: True.
– **Relevance**: True. Disruption to supply chains is a potential effect of a strike.
7. **Fact**: Port workers in Montreal are threatening a parallel strike.
– **Truth**: This would require verification regarding Montreal port workers.
– **Relevance**: True. If true, this could exacerbate disruptions.
8. **Fact**: There is worry about widespread port disruptions across North America.
– **Truth**: True.
– **Relevance**: True. Widespread disruptions could amplify economic and logistic impacts.
9. **Fact**: Both sides aim to prevent an impactful economic disturbance.
– **Truth**: True.
– **Relevance**: True. Both sides’ objectives are crucial to negotiations and the likelihood of a strike.
Additional Context Note: The original question asked about the probability of a strike in Q1 2025. The summary primarily deals with events leading up to January 2024, which may affect negotiation dynamics but does not directly address the probability of a strike in Q1 2025. Therefore, facts 1-9 are relevant to understanding the background and context but may not directly answer the probability question for the given period.
Fact-checked summary: Contract negotiations are taking place between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and port operators on the US East and Gulf Coasts, with the current contract set to expire on January 15, 2024. There are unresolved issues, notably regarding automation, as the union is strongly opposed to increased automation due to job security concerns. Both the union and port operators are returning to the bargaining table to address these issues. Unresolved negotiations and the union’s opposition to automation are key factors that could lead to a strike, which could result in disruptions affecting supply chains and critical goods, with widespread port disruptions potentially impacting North America. Both parties aim to avoid an economic disturbance, which is a crucial consideration during negotiations.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.2
The following were considered in order to produce this base rate: The base rate is set based on historical data regarding labor negotiations in the shipping and transportation sectors. While strikes are a regular threat, they are often averted through last-minute agreements to avoid economic disruptions. Historical analysis of the ILA shows they frequently negotiate contracts that prevent long-term strikes, despite intense disputes. Considering the pattern of avoiding prolonged strikes due to their serious impact, the base rate reflects an unlikely, but possible, outcome of a strike.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: Key considerations that could lead to a different outcome include the intensified focus on automation, a particularly contentious issue for the ILA, and increased resistance to settlement if members perceive the negotiations as existential. Additionally, emerging economic or political pressures in early 2024 before January 15, such as government interventions or shifts in public opinion, could sway negotiations. If new trade agreements or economic conditions change the stakes for port operators, they might concede to union demands to avoid a strike.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Unsuccessful contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and port operators on the US East and Gulf Coasts, leading to a breakdown in talks before January 15, 2024. The likelihood of this event is low because historical precedent shows both parties often reach late agreements to avoid strikes.
– The ILA leadership and membership must agree to call a strike, reflecting significant internal consensus. The likelihood of this event is moderate due to the union’s strong opposition to automation and job security concerns.
– There must be no significant external pressure or intervention, such as government mediation or economic considerations, that convinces both parties to settle before a strike occurs. The likelihood of this event is low, as external pressures often lead to resolving such situations without strikes.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.25 – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.35
Base rate: 0.2 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.05
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.29
Reverse Mellers: 0.4
Theory of Mind: 0.35 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.001
Close Type: B (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.35
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI
A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The likelihood of a strike in Q1 2025 hinges on a combination of historical trends, negotiation dynamics, and external pressures. Historically, strikes have often been averted through last-minute agreements, especially given the significant economic impact of port disruptions, making a strike less likely. This pattern is corroborated by the tendency for governments to intervene when negotiations appear close to failing. Additionally, a recent agreement on salary increases sets a collaborative tone, although the contentious issue of automation poses a significant challenge, as it raises job security concerns that could lead to more rigid bargaining stances. The short negotiation timeframe is double-edged: while it could push parties towards an expedient compromise, it might also pressure the union to strike for better leverage. The possibility of unforeseen economic or political developments further complicates the prediction of strike probabilities.
How many seats will the Conservative Party win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election?
Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today:
* less than 172: 14.29%
* between 172 and 205: 38.1%
* between 206 and 240: 33.33%
* more than 240: 14.28%
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources.
Most Recent Developments (Last 24 Hours):
Justin Trudeau has announced his resignation as Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Liberal Party. This comes amid declining popularity and poor polling numbers ahead of the expected 2025 federal election. In his resignation announcement, Trudeau cited “internal battles” and indicated that he felt he could no longer be the “best option” to lead. His one expressed regret was not achieving electoral reform during his tenure.
Political Landscape & Succession:
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre is currently leading in polls and positioned as a strong contender to become the next Prime Minister. Poilievre has criticized Trudeau’s resignation as a political maneuver by the Liberal Party and is focusing his campaign messaging on issues like the carbon tax and economic concerns. The Conservative Party’s surge in popularity comes as they frame key election issues around cost of living, housing affordability, and opposition to carbon pricing.
Looking Ahead: The Liberal Party will need to select a new leader ahead of the next federal election, with some speculation about potential candidates including former BC Premier Christy Clark. The timing of the next election remains uncertain but is expected in 2025. Key campaign issues are already emerging, including carbon tax policy, economic management, and federal-provincial relations regarding issues like equalization payments. The Conservative Party under Poilievre appears well-positioned to potentially form the next government, though much could change during the leadership transition period.
Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“Recent unverified reports suggest that Justin Trudeau has announced his resignation as Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Liberal Party, reportedly due to internal challenges and declining popularity ahead of an anticipated 2025 federal election. Trudeau is said to regret not achieving electoral reform during his leadership. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, is reportedly leading in polls, criticizing Trudeau’s exit as a strategic move by the Liberals. The Conservative Party is focusing on issues like the carbon tax and cost of living, contributing to their increased popularity. Speculation surrounds potential Liberal leadership candidates, with former BC Premier Christy Clark mentioned as a possibility. With the election expected in 2025, campaign topics such as economic management and federal-provincial relations are expected to be pivotal. However, since the information may not be reliable, developments should be monitored carefully.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts extracted from the summary, along with assessments of their correctness and relevance to the outcome:
1. **Fact:** Justin Trudeau has announced his resignation as Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Liberal Party.
– **Correctness:** False (As of October 2023, Justin Trudeau has not announced his resignation).
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True (The leadership of the Liberal Party could influence election outcomes).
2. **Fact:** There are internal challenges and declining popularity for Trudeau ahead of an anticipated 2025 federal election.
– **Correctness:** Partially True (There have been reports of challenges and criticisms, but the specifics about “internal challenges” and “declining popularity” can only be partially verified).
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True (A leader’s popularity can affect election prospects).
3. **Fact:** Trudeau regrets not achieving electoral reform during his leadership.
– **Correctness:** True (Trudeau has acknowledged in the past that not achieving electoral reform was a disappointment).
– **Relevance to Outcome:** False (This regret does not directly affect the number of seats the Conservative Party will win).
4. **Fact:** Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, is reportedly leading in polls.
– **Correctness:** Unknown (Without specific poll data from the same period, this statement is unverifiable, though Poilievre has been leading in some polls).
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True (Polling positions can help predict election outcomes).
5. **Fact:** Poilievre criticized Trudeau’s exit as a strategic move by the Liberals.
– **Correctness:** False (Since Trudeau has not resigned, this criticism regarding his exit would not exist).
– **Relevance to Outcome:** False (Since the premise is false, it cannot be relevant).
6. **Fact:** The Conservative Party is focusing on issues like the carbon tax and cost of living, contributing to increased popularity.
– **Correctness:** True (The Conservative Party has emphasized these issues).
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True (Focusing on popular issues can influence voter support and election results).
7. **Fact:** Speculation surrounds potential Liberal leadership candidates, with former BC Premier Christy Clark mentioned as a possibility.
– **Correctness:** Unknown (The statement mentions speculation, which is inherently unverifiable without insider sources).
– **Relevance to Outcome:** False (Speculation on leadership alone doesn’t affect the number of seats the Conservatives will win).
8. **Fact:** With the election expected in 2025, campaign topics such as economic management and federal-provincial relations are expected to be pivotal.
– **Correctness:** True (These are common political issues that could be important in an election).
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True (Key campaign topics can influence voter behavior and election results).
9. **Fact:** Since the information may not be reliable, developments should be monitored carefully.
– **Correctness:** True (Caution in interpreting unverified reports is generally advisable).
– **Relevance to Outcome:** False (While monitoring developments is wise, it doesn’t directly affect the number of seats the Conservatives will win).
Overall, the summary contains a mixture of accurate and speculative information, with varying degrees of relevance to the original question.
Fact-checked summary: The future number of seats the Conservative Party will win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election is uncertain; however, several relevant and true factors may influence the outcome. Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party, is focusing on key issues like the carbon tax and cost of living, which could contribute to the party’s increased popularity among voters. Additionally, the anticipated federal election in 2025 is expected to focus on pivotal topics such as economic management and federal-provincial relations, which could affect voter support and the final election results. While internal challenges and declining popularity for Liberal leader Justin Trudeau might impact the election dynamics, specific effects on seat numbers for the Conservative Party remain speculative.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.35, “between 172 and 205”: 0.4, “between 206 and 240”: 0.2, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.1, “between 172 and 205”: 0.4, “between 206 and 240”: 0.35, “more than 240”: 0.15] – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.15, “between 172 and 205”: 0.25, “between 206 and 240”: 0.35, “more than 240”: 0.25] – confidence: 5)
Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 5
# LLM responses: 3
Model value:
* less than 172: 0.1429
* between 172 and 205: 0.381
* between 206 and 240: 0.3333
* more than 240: 0.1428
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI
A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The consensus among the AI analyses is that the Conservative Party, under Pierre Poilievre, is in a favorable position for the anticipated 2025 election, particularly given the focus on economic management and federal-provincial relations where they traditionally excel. Key factors supporting this prediction include the Conservative Party’s growing popularity on issues like the carbon tax and cost of living, along with the declining popularity of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. However, the analyses also agree that the unpredictability of elections, influenced by regional voting patterns, potential unforeseen events, changes in Liberal Party leadership, and the impact of strategic voting, introduces significant uncertainty. Therefore, while the Conservatives have a reasonable chance of increasing their seat count, achieving a majority remains uncertain amidst various dynamic political factors.
Runtime: 188 seconds for all questions on this page.
Past Multi-AI Oracle Forecasts
Guide to our Multi-AI Oracle’s Reports
Median: We collect the output values from the LLMs in an array. We then take the median value. This is between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0.15 = 15%).
Base rate: Currently we take OpenAI’s value as the base rate. We are working on a better value using a different prompt that takes into account process. The base rate helps to determine if the median makes sense.
SD: The standard deviation between the median and the base rate.
Confidence: We query each of the LLMs on how confident they are of their predictions (between 0 and 10) and take a median. Because the LLMs tend to be overconfident, we take anything lower than 6 as being low confidence. This factors into the overall model.
Conf Mode: Based on the confidence value. >=9 is high confidence. Below 6 is low confidence (this is also triggered by an exceptionally high SD).
Mellers: This refers to Barbara Mellers, specifically a paper she wrote that includes a formula for moving values towards an extreme (i.e. 0 or 1).
Reverse Mellers: This uses the formula from above, but with a sub-1 coefficient to move the values closer to 50%.
Theory of Mind: We ask the LLMs what they think other LLMs would predict. We hope that this makes them consider the questions more deeply.
Beta Distribution: Currently unused, but possibly of interest. This is based on the median, the base rate and the SD.
Close Type: We noticed that the appropriate base case for some questions is closer to the extremes, while others are closer to 50%. When we have a low confidence value, this helps us to determine whether to extremize or de-extremize the value. ‘A’ implies closer to zero. ‘B’ implies closer to 50%. ‘C’ implies closer to 100%.
# LLM Responses: The count of LLMs that responded. We query 5 currently, but they have a relatively high API failure rate.
Model value: For normal confidence mode, this is the median. For high confidence, this is the Mellers value. For low confidence, this is either the Mellers or Reverse Mellers (depending on the Close Type).
