<case_file>
  <case_evidence id="1">
    """
    {{text}}
    """
  </case_evidence>
  <forensic_data_profile id="2">
    > *Use these metrics to execute the 'Forensic Priors Checklist' defined in your System Role.*
    {{forensic_stats}}
  </forensic_data_profile>
  <council_deliberation id="3">
    <transcript>
      {{transcript}}
    </transcript>
    <synthesis>
      {{council_analysis}}
    </synthesis>
  </council_deliberation>
  <final_charge id="4">
    You are the Final Arbiter. The Council provides perspectives, but YOU provide the Verdict.
    EXECUTION STEPS:
    1. Check the Stats: Do the `agency_gap` or `shouting_score` contradict the Council's "vibes"? (e.g., Council says "Conspiracy" but `agency_gap` is low/specific -> Doubt it).
    2. Weigh the Dissent: If the Council is split, does the Minority Opinion align better with the Forensic Data?
    3. Render 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.
  </final_charge>
</case_file>