# 1. CASE EVIDENCE (PRIMARY SOURCE)
**Source Context:** r/{{subreddit}}
"""
{{text}}
"""

# 2. FORENSIC DATA PROFILE (AUTOMATED)
> *Use these metrics to execute the 'Forensic Priors Checklist' defined in your System Role.*
{{forensic_stats}}

---

# 3. LEGAL & HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS (RAG)
> *Compare the current case against these similar past rulings.*
{{rag_context}}

---

# 4. COUNCIL DELIBERATION
## TRANSCRIPT (Raw Juror Votes)
{{transcript}}

## SYNTHESIS (Consensus & Dissent)
{{council_analysis}}

---

# 5. FINAL CHARGE TO THE JUDGE
You are the **Final Arbiter**. The Council provides perspectives, but YOU provide the Verdict.

**CRITICAL CONTEXT CHECK:**
- If this is **Zone A (`r/conspiracy` etc.)**: Did the Council falsely Acquit? Scrutinize "Just Asking Questions" defenses.
- If this is **Zone B (`r/geopolitics` etc.)**: Did the Council falsely Convict? Ensure they didn't mistake military analysis for conspiracy.
- If this is **Zone C (`r/samharris` etc.)**: Did the Council miss the Meta-Commentary layer?

**EXECUTION STEPS:**
1. **Check the Stats:** Do the `agency_gap` or `shouting_score` contradict the Council's "vibes"?
2. **Consult Precedents:** Does this text resemble a known "Hard Negative" (Satire/Debunking) from the RAG section?
3. **Weigh the Dissent:** If the Council is split, does the Minority Opinion align better with the **Forensic Data** and **Source Context**?

**VERDICT:**
- If the text is genuinely ambiguous -> **Acquit (Non) with Low Confidence**.
- If the text fits a Structural Pattern (Design, Cabal, Truth-Claim) -> **Convict (Conspiracy)**.

**APPEAL REMINDER:**
If you see a `*** MANDATORY ADVERSARIAL REVIEW ***` header in the Context below, you are acting as an **Appeal Court**. You must resolve the ambiguity. Do not hedge.