The contractor delivered 8 slides instead of 10, three days after the agreed deadline, with no prior notice or renegotiation. The client refuses to release the $800 payment.
Pose a question. Pick a mode. Watch five validators deliberate. See the Equivalence Principle deliver a verdict. Disagreement triggers appeal.
"A freelancer was paid $800 to deliver a 10-slide pitch deck by Friday. They delivered an 8-slide deck on Monday. Did they fulfill the contract?"
Awaiting summons.
Awaiting summons.
Awaiting summons.
Awaiting summons.
Awaiting summons.
The contractor delivered 8 slides instead of 10, three days after the agreed deadline, with no prior notice or renegotiation. The client refuses to release the $800 payment.
Non-comparative because fulfillment is a judgment call, not a number. Two validators may phrase 'material breach' differently but still reach the same conclusion — a rubric lets the sixth LLM judge whether they actually agree.
Ethereum can only evaluate on-chain data. It cannot reason about whether 8 slides substantially fulfills a 10-slide contract — that requires language understanding. A Solidity contract would need an oracle that reduces subjective fulfillment to a binary, which defeats the purpose.