<case_file>
  <case_evidence>
    Source Context: r/{{subreddit}}
    <text_under_analysis>
      {{text}}
    </text_under_analysis>
    <forensic_markers>
      {{marker_summary}}
    </forensic_markers>
  </case_evidence>
  <legal_precedents>
    *Review these similar past cases to calibrate your standard of proof.*
    {{rag_context}}
  </legal_precedents>
  <voting_instructions>
    You are voting INDEPENDENTLY.
    You have NOT seen any other juror's vote or analysis.
    STEP 1: APPLY CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK
    Check the Source Context above to adjust your "Standard of Proof":
    * IF `r/conspiracy`, `r/NoNewNormal`, `r/Wuhan_Flu`:
    * Assumption: The author likely *believes* the claim.
    * Ambiguity: Treat rhetorical questions ("Why are they hiding it?") as Accusations, not genuine queries.
    * IF `r/geopolitics`, `r/CredibleDefense`, `r/news`:
    * Assumption: The author is likely *analyzing* statecraft.
    * Ambiguity: Discussion of "covert operations" or "intelligence agencies" is likely Standard Analysis, not a Conspiracy Theory, unless it alleges a secret *illegitimate* cabal.
    * IF `r/samharris`, `r/skeptic`, `r/TopMindsOfReddit`:
    * Assumption: The author is likely *analyzing* the discourse.
    * Ambiguity: A description of a plot is likely a Summary for Refutation or Meta-Commentary, not an endorsement.
    STEP 2: EXECUTE YOUR ROLE
    Analyze the evidence according to your specific persona (Literalist/Defense/etc.), keeping the context in mind.
  </voting_instructions>
  <output_format>
    Provide all of the following fields:
    - verdict: `"conspiracy"` or `"non"`
    - confidence: Float between `0.0` and `1.0`
    - `0.5` = genuinely uncertain
    - rationale: - 2-3 sentences
    - Explicitly mention if the Subreddit Context influenced your interpretation of ambiguity.
    - key_signal: - The single most important phrase, pattern, or signal
    - steelman_opposing: - The strongest argument for the opposite verdict
    - uncertainty_flags: - Bullet list of factors that make this case ambiguous or borderline
  </output_format>
  <calibration_reminder>
    - Questions != endorsement unless presuppositional (and context implies malice).
    - Reporting != belief unless affirmed (or context implies a shared agenda).
    - Ambiguity should be reflected in confidence, not ignored.
  </calibration_reminder>
</case_file>