Omniousdocs
Market integrityShadow

The three verdicts

Shadow points outcomes: upheld reduces provider points and credits the challenger; rejected forfeits the stake; ambiguous unlocks it.

Owner
Trust & Safety
Version
s0-2026.07.1
Verified
2026-07-13

Every challenge resolves to exactly one of three verdicts, and each verdict produces fixed entries in the Shadow points calculation. Nothing about that arithmetic is discretionary except the operator-recorded verdict itself.

Shadow mechanismThese outcomes are implemented for approved reviewer wallets and operator-recorded verdicts only. They are not public customer terms, and they move points—not USDC collateral.

✓ Upheld: the operator accepts the evidence

  • The challenger's stake unlocks, fully returned.
  • The provider's points calculation is reduced by max(250 GPUs, 25x the receipt's net earn).
  • Half the provider-points reduction is credited to the challenger as the bounty. The other half is credited to no one.
  • The provider's model claim state is recorded as quarantined. Under today's default Shadow integrity mode, that state does not itself stop routing. See Provider bonds & quarantine.

✕ Rejected: the operator rejects the evidence

  • The challenger's stake is forfeited: burned, not paid to anyone.
  • The provider points are unchanged, and the review records an informational trust event.

The asymmetry is deliberate. If rejected stakes were paid to the accused provider, a provider could challenge itself through a friendly wallet and farm its accusers. Burning the forfeit keeps false accusations costly without making honesty a revenue stream for anybody.

~ Ambiguous: the evidence did not decide it

  • The stake unlocks. No slash, no bounty, no forfeit.
  • A warning lands on the provider's trust record.
  • The receipt becomes challengeable again, so better evidence can retry what a weak filing could not prove.
why three verdicts and not twoA binary verdict forces the judge to punish someone on thin evidence: either an honest provider or an honest challenger. The ambiguous outcome makes "not proven" safe to say, which keeps both sides willing to participate while the evidence tooling matures.

Vocabulary, precisely

Stake is what a challenger locks to file. Slash is the provider penalty on uphold. Bounty is the challenger's half of the slash. Forfeit is a rejected challenger's burned stake. Bond is separate. Today bond_amount is declared claim metadata with no USDC escrow; funded provider collateral is Proposed. The words are used consistently in the wire formats, code, and glossary.

As a challengerYour worst case is always known before you sign: the quoted stake. Your best case is half the slash, which scales with the receipt you caught.
As a providerOnly upheld hurts you, and upheld requires evidence that survives an adversarial filing and a resolution. Serve what you claim and the lane is a defense, not a threat.
where this lives in code