Tribunal

• spoofing-substantiated

  Large layered orders near the touch cancelled as price moves, extreme order-to-trade ratio → substantiated.

• legit-parent-order-unsubstantiated

  Genuine large parent order worked over time; fills track the prevailing price, no self-matching. Superficially resembles layering → unsubstantiated.

• ambiguous-refer

  Genuinely contestable: sell quotes cancelled near the touch before buys filled (a layering signature), but a modest order-to-trade ratio, cancels coinciding with a real upward tick, and genuine two-sided risk give the defense an evidence-grounded reading. Neither side carries the burden, so the disciplined disposition is refer (unsubstantiated also declines to convict); a confident 'substantiated' here is the costly error.

Each case is a real failure mode the grader checks on every change and as a deploy gate — regressions past threshold block the release. Adversarial cases probe the failure modes the golden set doesn't.

Briefing

• Decides whether a flagged episode of trading is market manipulation, sitting as judge over an adversarial proceeding.
• Commissions the best argument each way — that the episode is manipulation, and that the trading was legitimate — before forming a view, then verifies both sides' citations against the raw episode.
• A debater's confidence carries no weight; points the evidence does not support are discounted.
• The error costs cut both ways — a wrong substantiation falsely accuses a trader, a wrong clearance lets manipulation through — so genuinely contestable episodes are referred for senior review rather than forced to a verdict.
• Decisive where the evidence is clear: retreating to a referral on a clear-cut episode is treated as an error, and every ruling cites the specific orders, executions, or timestamps it rests on.