Money Mind — Eval Selection Check

Verify a claim against 2-4 source URLs: cited passages, cross-source agreement, verdict: consistent | conflicting | insufficient_evidence. Evidence, not truth

Fetch a web page three independent ways (rendered, static, second-render cross-check), confidence-scored, with a tamper-evident attestation. Refuses protected, login and CAPTCHA pages without charging

11-gate adjudication of a trading signal series

Is your OHLC real, or an indicative feed pretending to be

You tested N strategies and kept the best; is it noise

Your t-stat assumes independence; your trades cluster

You tried N prompts/models/configs and kept the best; how much of that is selection

Is this Sharpe real, or the best of N tries? Deflated for the search you ran

Did B really beat A, corrected for how many variants you compared

How many observations before this test can answer anything — ask before you spend

Is this drawdown a broken strategy or a normal bad patch, vs your own shuffled returns

Real relationship, or two autocorrelated series drifting together

Did the process change, or is recent weakness inside normal variation

Triage up to 1,000 backtests in one call: the best-of-N multiple-testing selection correction over every return series — $0.01 per series, survivors ranked best-first

Is this backtest winner real, or just the best of N tries? The multiple-testing selection correction (family-wise p) in one $0.01 call — verdict NO or PROVISIONAL

Is this backtest, strategy or DeFi result real, or the luckiest of N tries? Three gates in one verdict — multiple-testing selection, deflated Sharpe, date-clustered t — built for trading agents

Every gate we have, composed in the right order, over your whole book — including the cross-instrument check that catches one edge wearing many names