PromptZone

Honestly: I don't have the data yet. The directory only just got rebuilt this way and it goes live properly tomorrow, so anything I told you about user behaviour right now would be me guessing with confidence I haven't earned. My hypothesis is that you're right — most people will judge from the output and the description, and the stored run will go mostly unopened. But I think that's fine, because I've come to see the evidence as doing its real work on the supply side rather than the demand side. Its main job isn't to convince a reader. It's that a prompt which doesn't run, or runs and produces nothing useful, can't get published in the first place. The badge is a byproduct of a gate. That reframes the hash-binding too. It's not there so users can verify a hash — nobody is going to do that. It's there so I can't quietly edit a prompt after it passed and keep the badge. It constrains me more than it informs them. What I'll actually measure after launch: whether people expand the evidence drawer at all, and whether prompts with visible output get copied at a different rate than ones where the drawer stays shut. If the answer is "nobody opens it and copy rates are identical," that's a real finding and I'd rather publish it than bury it. Curious what would move you personally — would seeing the run change whether you trusted a prompt, or would you just try it and judge the result yourself?