Primary weight goes to direct evidence of whether a signing has actually been announced (sq1); absent that, the negotiation-status and forcing-event sub-questions determine how likely a signature is in the short remaining window, with the historical base rate anchoring the tail. Weighted average, since all sub-questions reflect the same underlying diplomatic momentum.
## Cross-Market Signals ### Polymarket - "Will the Fed increase interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.00, Volume: $6.1M - "Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.01, Volume: $9.5M - "Will there be no change in Fed interest rates after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.71, Volume: $8.4M - "Will the Fed increase interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.28, Volume: $8.0M - "Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.00, Volume: $5.5M - "US-Iran Final Nuclear Deal by December 31, 2026?" → Yes: 0.12, Volume: $1.7M - "US announces end of Iranian blockade by September 30, 2026?" → Yes: 0.33, Volume: $926.0K - "Clarity Act (H.R.3633) signed into law in 2026?" → Yes: 0.20, Volume: $7.2M
## Cross-Market Signals ### Polymarket - "Will the Fed increase interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.00, Volume: $6.1M - "Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.01, Volume: $9.5M - "Will there be no change in Fed interest rates after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.71, Volume: $8.4M - "Will the Fed increase interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.28, Volume: $8.0M - "Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.00, Volume: $5.5M - "US-Iran Final Nuclear Deal by December 31, 2026?" → Yes: 0.12, Volume: $1.7M - "US announces end of Iranian blockade by September 30, 2026?" → Yes: 0.33, Volume: $926.0K - "Clarity Act (H.R.3633) signed into law in 2026?" → Yes: 0.20, Volume: $7.2M
You are an elite superforecaster using Tetlock-style Fermi decomposition. Estimate each sub-question INDEPENDENTLY, then provide a holistic estimate. The pipeline will mathematically recombine the sub-question estimates — your job is to give the most accurate per-component probabilities.
## Question
Will the U.S. and Argentina have signed a new 123 civil nuclear cooperation agreement as of September 10, 2026?
## Description / Resolution Criteria
## Description
The United States and Argentina have a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement ("123 Agreement," under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act) that entered into force on October 16, 1997 and is scheduled to expire on October 16, 2027. Such agreements provide the legal framework for civil nuclear trade, technology transfer, and cooperation, conditioned on nonproliferation assurances.
At the 19th meeting of the U.S.-Argentina Joint Standing Committee on Nuclear Energy Cooperation (Washington, February 25-27, 2026), both delegations, in a joint statement issued March 5, 2026, "reaffirmed their commitment to swiftly complete negotiations on the text of a new Agreement for Cooperation ... to replace the current agreement, which expires in 2027." Reporting indicates a draft text was advanced at the February 2026 technical meeting, but as of August 2026 no signing has been announced; official U.S. (State/DOE) and Congressional Research Service listings still show only the 1997-2027 agreement.
Under U.S. law, after a new 123 agreement is signed it must undergo a presidential determination, transmittal to Congress, and a statutory congressional review period (typically 90 days of continuous session) before it can enter into force. Signing is therefore a distinct, earlier step than entry into force. Cooperation has been deepening (e.g. Argentina joining the U.S.-led FIRST program in September 2025, memoranda on critical mineral supply chains, and private-investment projects such as Nano Energy-Dioxitek), creating political momentum toward concluding a new agreement, but negotiations remained officially ongoing as of the latest statements, and the current agreement does not expire until October 2027, reducing time pressure for an immediate signing.
`{"format": "bot_tournament_question", "info": {"hash_id": "c3599dd53e7bd93e", "sheet_id": "171"}}`
## Resolution Criteria
This question resolves YES if, as of September 10, 2026 (0:00 UTC), the government of the United States and the government of Argentina have formally signed a new bilateral Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (a "123 Agreement" under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act). Resolution is based on an official announcement by the U.S. Department of State or U.S. Department of Energy, an official statement from the government of Argentina (e.g. the Cancillería or the office responsible for nuclear affairs), or reporting from [credible sources](https://www.metaculus.com/faq/#definitions) confirming that authorized representatives of both governments have signed the text of the new agreement. If no such signing has occurred as of that time, the question resolves NO.
## Fine Print
A mere extension of the existing 1997 agreement (rather than a newly signed replacement agreement) does not count.
## Sub-question decomposition
- (w=0.40) Has an official U.S. (State/DOE) or Argentine (Cancillería/Secretaría de Energía/CNEA) announcement already confirmed the signing of a new U.S.-Argentina 123 Agreement as of the latest available reporting? — Direct resolution check — if already signed, question resolves YES immediately.
- (w=0.30) Do negotiations remain officially 'ongoing' (text not finalized/initialed) with no scheduled signing ceremony announced before September 10, 2026? — Negotiation status is the key leading indicator; 'ongoing negotiations' language strongly implies no near-term signature
- (w=0.20) Is there a concrete forcing event (e.g., a presidential/bilateral summit, high-level visit, or stated deadline) between August 2026 and September 10, 2026 likely to produce a signing ceremony? — 123 agreements are typically signed at high-level diplomatic moments; absence of such an event in the ~3-week window mak
- (w=0.10) Based on historical base rates, do 123 agreement negotiations typically move from 'draft text advanced' to formal signature within ~6 months? — Reference class: 123 negotiations and renewals often take years; base rate informs the tail probability.
Combination rule: **weighted_average**
## Synthesized evidence
## Cross-Market Signals
### Polymarket
- "Will the Fed increase interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.00, Volume: $6.1M
- "Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.01, Volume: $9.5M
- "Will there be no change in Fed interest rates after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.71, Volume: $8.4M
- "Will the Fed increase interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.28, Volume: $8.0M
- "Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?" → Yes: 0.00, Volume: $5.5M
- "US-Iran Final Nuclear Deal by December 31, 2026?" → Yes: 0.12, Volume: $1.7M
- "US announces end of Iranian blockade by September 30, 2026?" → Yes: 0.33, Volume: $926.0K
- "Clarity Act (H.R.3633) signed into law in 2026?" → Yes: 0.20, Volume: $7.2M
## Required pre-forecast walkthrough
Before giving probabilities, walk through these explicitly:
(a) The time left until the question resolves.
(b) The status quo outcome — what happens if nothing changes from today.
(c) A brief scenario that results in NO.
(d) A brief scenario that results in YES.
## Calibration guidance
- **Estimate each sub-question in isolation.** Do not let your answer to one sub-question anchor your answer to another. This is the core of Fermi decomposition — independence forces more careful reasoning per factor.
- **Anchor on the status quo.** Require strong specific evidence to move far from it.
- 0.05 / 0.95 require strong, multi-source evidence. Avoid >0.97 or <0.03 unless the outcome is already settled or near-tautological — overconfident misses are punished heavily by the log score.
- **Anchor on prediction markets.** If liquid market prices (Polymarket / Kalshi) or a community forecast appear in the evidence, treat them as a strong, well-calibrated prior. Your final estimate should rarely sit more than ~15 percentage points from a liquid market on the SAME question — move further only with specific evidence the market lacks.
- **Treat research as fallible, not ground truth.** A single-source or "very recent" claim — especially one the evidence flags as unverified, possibly AI-generated, or low-credibility — must not drive you to near-certainty. When a load-bearing fact is unverified, keep at least 10-15% on the chance it is wrong.
- **Also provide a holistic estimate** — your overall gut feeling about the main question, BEFORE you see the mathematical combination. This serves as a sanity check: if the Fermi result and holistic estimate diverge wildly, something is wrong.
## Output
Return ONLY valid JSON, no markdown fences:
{
"rationale": "<address (a) (b) (c) (d) above — 5-8 sentences total>",
"sub_question_estimates": {
"sq1": <float in [0.01, 0.99]>,
"sq2": <float in [0.01, 0.99]>,
"sq3": <float in [0.01, 0.99]>,
"sq4": <float in [0.01, 0.99]>
},
"holistic_p_yes": <float in [0.01, 0.99] — your overall estimate ignoring the decomposition>,
"what_would_change_my_mind": "<1-2 sentences: what new info would push you above 70% or below 30%>"
}
{
"forecast": {
"combination_logic": "weighted_average",
"evidence_brief": "\n## Cross-Market Signals\n\n### Polymarket\n- \"Will the Fed increase interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.00, Volume: $6.1M\n- \"Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.01, Volume: $9.5M\n- \"Will there be no change in Fed interest rates after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.71, Volume: $8.4M\n- \"Will the Fed increase interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.28, Volume: $8.0M\n- \"Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.00, Volume: $5.5M\n- \"US-Iran Final Nuclear Deal by December 31, 2026?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.12, Volume: $1.7M\n- \"US announces end of Iranian blockade by September 30, 2026?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.33, Volume: $926.0K\n- \"Clarity Act (H.R.3633) signed into law in 2026?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.20, Volume: $7.2M",
"forecast_prompt": "You are an elite superforecaster using Tetlock-style Fermi decomposition. Estimate each sub-question INDEPENDENTLY, then provide a holistic estimate. The pipeline will mathematically recombine the sub-question estimates \u2014 your job is to give the most accurate per-component probabilities.\n\n## Question\nWill the U.S. and Argentina have signed a new 123 civil nuclear cooperation agreement as of September 10, 2026?\n\n## Description / Resolution Criteria\n## Description\nThe United States and Argentina have a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement (\"123 Agreement,\" under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act) that entered into force on October 16, 1997 and is scheduled to expire on October 16, 2027. Such agreements provide the legal framework for civil nuclear trade, technology transfer, and cooperation, conditioned on nonproliferation assurances.\n\nAt the 19th meeting of the U.S.-Argentina Joint Standing Committee on Nuclear Energy Cooperation (Washington, February 25-27, 2026), both delegations, in a joint statement issued March 5, 2026, \"reaffirmed their commitment to swiftly complete negotiations on the text of a new Agreement for Cooperation ... to replace the current agreement, which expires in 2027.\" Reporting indicates a draft text was advanced at the February 2026 technical meeting, but as of August 2026 no signing has been announced; official U.S. (State/DOE) and Congressional Research Service listings still show only the 1997-2027 agreement.\n\nUnder U.S. law, after a new 123 agreement is signed it must undergo a presidential determination, transmittal to Congress, and a statutory congressional review period (typically 90 days of continuous session) before it can enter into force. Signing is therefore a distinct, earlier step than entry into force. Cooperation has been deepening (e.g. Argentina joining the U.S.-led FIRST program in September 2025, memoranda on critical mineral supply chains, and private-investment projects such as Nano Energy-Dioxitek), creating political momentum toward concluding a new agreement, but negotiations remained officially ongoing as of the latest statements, and the current agreement does not expire until October 2027, reducing time pressure for an immediate signing.\n\n`{\"format\": \"bot_tournament_question\", \"info\": {\"hash_id\": \"c3599dd53e7bd93e\", \"sheet_id\": \"171\"}}`\n\n## Resolution Criteria\nThis question resolves YES if, as of September 10, 2026 (0:00 UTC), the government of the United States and the government of Argentina have formally signed a new bilateral Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (a \"123 Agreement\" under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act). Resolution is based on an official announcement by the U.S. Department of State or U.S. Department of Energy, an official statement from the government of Argentina (e.g. the Canciller\u00eda or the office responsible for nuclear affairs), or reporting from [credible sources](https://www.metaculus.com/faq/#definitions) confirming that authorized representatives of both governments have signed the text of the new agreement. If no such signing has occurred as of that time, the question resolves NO.\n\n## Fine Print\nA mere extension of the existing 1997 agreement (rather than a newly signed replacement agreement) does not count.\n\n## Sub-question decomposition\n- (w=0.40) Has an official U.S. (State/DOE) or Argentine (Canciller\u00eda/Secretar\u00eda de Energ\u00eda/CNEA) announcement already confirmed the signing of a new U.S.-Argentina 123 Agreement as of the latest available reporting? \u2014 Direct resolution check \u2014 if already signed, question resolves YES immediately.\n- (w=0.30) Do negotiations remain officially \u0027ongoing\u0027 (text not finalized/initialed) with no scheduled signing ceremony announced before September 10, 2026? \u2014 Negotiation status is the key leading indicator; \u0027ongoing negotiations\u0027 language strongly implies no near-term signature\n- (w=0.20) Is there a concrete forcing event (e.g., a presidential/bilateral summit, high-level visit, or stated deadline) between August 2026 and September 10, 2026 likely to produce a signing ceremony? \u2014 123 agreements are typically signed at high-level diplomatic moments; absence of such an event in the ~3-week window mak\n- (w=0.10) Based on historical base rates, do 123 agreement negotiations typically move from \u0027draft text advanced\u0027 to formal signature within ~6 months? \u2014 Reference class: 123 negotiations and renewals often take years; base rate informs the tail probability.\n\nCombination rule: **weighted_average**\n\n## Synthesized evidence\n\n## Cross-Market Signals\n\n### Polymarket\n- \"Will the Fed increase interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.00, Volume: $6.1M\n- \"Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.01, Volume: $9.5M\n- \"Will there be no change in Fed interest rates after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.71, Volume: $8.4M\n- \"Will the Fed increase interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.28, Volume: $8.0M\n- \"Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.00, Volume: $5.5M\n- \"US-Iran Final Nuclear Deal by December 31, 2026?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.12, Volume: $1.7M\n- \"US announces end of Iranian blockade by September 30, 2026?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.33, Volume: $926.0K\n- \"Clarity Act (H.R.3633) signed into law in 2026?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.20, Volume: $7.2M\n\n## Required pre-forecast walkthrough\n\nBefore giving probabilities, walk through these explicitly:\n (a) The time left until the question resolves.\n (b) The status quo outcome \u2014 what happens if nothing changes from today.\n (c) A brief scenario that results in NO.\n (d) A brief scenario that results in YES.\n\n## Calibration guidance\n\n- **Estimate each sub-question in isolation.** Do not let your answer to one sub-question anchor your answer to another. This is the core of Fermi decomposition \u2014 independence forces more careful reasoning per factor.\n- **Anchor on the status quo.** Require strong specific evidence to move far from it.\n- 0.05 / 0.95 require strong, multi-source evidence. Avoid \u003e0.97 or \u003c0.03 unless the outcome is already settled or near-tautological \u2014 overconfident misses are punished heavily by the log score.\n- **Anchor on prediction markets.** If liquid market prices (Polymarket / Kalshi) or a community forecast appear in the evidence, treat them as a strong, well-calibrated prior. Your final estimate should rarely sit more than ~15 percentage points from a liquid market on the SAME question \u2014 move further only with specific evidence the market lacks.\n- **Treat research as fallible, not ground truth.** A single-source or \"very recent\" claim \u2014 especially one the evidence flags as unverified, possibly AI-generated, or low-credibility \u2014 must not drive you to near-certainty. When a load-bearing fact is unverified, keep at least 10-15% on the chance it is wrong.\n- **Also provide a holistic estimate** \u2014 your overall gut feeling about the main question, BEFORE you see the mathematical combination. This serves as a sanity check: if the Fermi result and holistic estimate diverge wildly, something is wrong.\n\n## Output\n\nReturn ONLY valid JSON, no markdown fences:\n\n{\n \"rationale\": \"\u003caddress (a) (b) (c) (d) above \u2014 5-8 sentences total\u003e\",\n \"sub_question_estimates\": {\n \"sq1\": \u003cfloat in [0.01, 0.99]\u003e,\n \"sq2\": \u003cfloat in [0.01, 0.99]\u003e,\n \"sq3\": \u003cfloat in [0.01, 0.99]\u003e,\n \"sq4\": \u003cfloat in [0.01, 0.99]\u003e\n },\n \"holistic_p_yes\": \u003cfloat in [0.01, 0.99] \u2014 your overall estimate ignoring the decomposition\u003e,\n \"what_would_change_my_mind\": \"\u003c1-2 sentences: what new info would push you above 70% or below 30%\u003e\"\n}\n",
"holistic_p_yes": 0.07,
"models": [
"opus",
"secondary"
],
"p_yes": 0.16040000000000001,
"rationale": "(a) Only about three weeks remain between the latest reported status (August 2026, no signing announced) and the September 10, 2026 resolution date. (b) Status quo: negotiations remain \u0027ongoing\u0027 with a draft text advanced but no initialing or signing ceremony announced; the existing 1997 agreement runs to October 2027, so there is no urgent deadline pressure before September 2026 \u2014 nothing changing means NO. (c) NO scenario (most likely): lawyers on both sides continue exchanging text on nonproliferation assurances, consent rights, and enrichment/reprocessing language; signature slips to late 2026 or early 2027 to allow the 90-day congressional review before October 2027 expiry. (d) YES scenario: a surprise high-level moment \u2014 e.g., a Milei visit to Washington or a U.S. cabinet trip to Buenos Aires tied to the broader U.S.-Argentina economic/critical-minerals package \u2014 is used to stage a signing ceremony on an already-agreed text; Argentina\u0027s government is eager and the Trump administration has repeatedly used Argentina deliverables for political signaling. (e) Base rates for 123 agreements moving from \u0027draft advanced\u0027 to signature within ~6 months are modest; renewals typically take 1-3 years, though renewals of existing agreements with an established partner (Argentina is an NPT/ABACC/IAEA-AP state in good standing) can move faster once text is agreed. Note: I have expressed the negotiation-status sub-question in the YES-supporting direction (probability that text is finalized/ceremony scheduled) so the weighted average maps to the main question. Overall I land near 7-10%.",
"sub_question_estimates": {
"sq1": 0.05,
"sq2": 0.12,
"sq3": 0.15,
"sq4": 0.2
},
"what_would_change_my_mind": "Confirmation that the text has been initialed/finalized plus an announced Milei-Trump meeting or DOE/State signing event before September 10 would push me above 70%; explicit statements that negotiations continue into late 2026 or a scheduled next JSC round after September would push me below 5%."
},
"plan": {
"combination_logic": "weighted_average",
"domain": "geopolitics",
"n_sub_qs": 4,
"n_tools": 5,
"reasoning_approach": "Primary weight goes to direct evidence of whether a signing has actually been announced (sq1); absent that, the negotiation-status and forcing-event sub-questions determine how likely a signature is in the short remaining window, with the historical base rate anchoring the tail. Weighted average, since all sub-questions reflect the same underlying diplomatic momentum.",
"sub_questions": [
{
"id": "sq1",
"question": "Has an official U.S. (State/DOE) or Argentine (Canciller\u00eda/Secretar\u00eda de Energ\u00eda/CNEA) announcement already confirmed the signing of a new U.S.-Argentina 123 Agreement as of the latest available reporting?",
"rationale": "Direct resolution check \u2014 if already signed, question resolves YES immediately.",
"weight": 0.4
},
{
"id": "sq2",
"question": "Do negotiations remain officially \u0027ongoing\u0027 (text not finalized/initialed) with no scheduled signing ceremony announced before September 10, 2026?",
"rationale": "Negotiation status is the key leading indicator; \u0027ongoing negotiations\u0027 language strongly implies no near-term signature.",
"weight": 0.3
},
{
"id": "sq3",
"question": "Is there a concrete forcing event (e.g., a presidential/bilateral summit, high-level visit, or stated deadline) between August 2026 and September 10, 2026 likely to produce a signing ceremony?",
"rationale": "123 agreements are typically signed at high-level diplomatic moments; absence of such an event in the ~3-week window makes YES unlikely.",
"weight": 0.2
},
{
"id": "sq4",
"question": "Based on historical base rates, do 123 agreement negotiations typically move from \u0027draft text advanced\u0027 to formal signature within ~6 months?",
"rationale": "Reference class: 123 negotiations and renewals often take years; base rate informs the tail probability.",
"weight": 0.1
}
],
"tool_requests": [
{
"parameters": {
"brief": "Determine the current status (as of the latest date available) of negotiations for a new U.S.-Argentina 123 civil nuclear cooperation agreement to replace the 1997 agreement expiring October 16, 2027. Look for: any announcement of signing, initialing, or completion of the text; statements from the U.S. State Department, DOE/NNSA, Argentine Canciller\u00eda, Secretar\u00eda de Energ\u00eda, or CNEA; the joint statement from the 19th Joint Standing Committee on Nuclear Energy Cooperation (March 5, 2026); any planned Milei-Trump meetings or bilateral summits in 2026; and any Congressional transmittal of a new agreement.",
"max_searches": 5,
"question_title": "Will the U.S. and Argentina have signed a new 123 civil nuclear cooperation agreement as of September 10, 2026?"
},
"target_sub_questions": [
"sq1",
"sq2",
"sq3"
],
"tool_name": "claude_news"
},
{
"parameters": {
"queries": [
"acuerdo nuclear 123 Estados Unidos Argentina firma 2026",
"US Argentina 123 agreement peaceful nuclear cooperation signed",
"Argentina Estados Unidos cooperaci\u00f3n nuclear acuerdo reemplazo 1997"
]
},
"target_sub_questions": [
"sq1",
"sq3"
],
"tool_name": "web_search"
},
{
"parameters": {
"lookback_days": 180,
"queries": [
"US Argentina 123 nuclear cooperation agreement negotiations",
"Argentina nuclear cooperation agreement State Department Congress",
"Milei Trump nuclear energy agreement Argentina"
]
},
"target_sub_questions": [
"sq2",
"sq3"
],
"tool_name": "article_search"
},
{
"parameters": {
"queries": [
"123 Agreement",
"Nuclear Cooperation Agreement United States",
"Comisi\u00f3n Nacional de Energ\u00eda At\u00f3mica"
]
},
"target_sub_questions": [
"sq4"
],
"tool_name": "wikipedia_lookup"
},
{
"parameters": {
"code": "import numpy as np\n# Base rate: probability a 123 agreement signing occurs in a specific ~3-week to 6-month window\n# given negotiations \u0027ongoing\u0027 with draft advanced ~6 months prior and expiry 13+ months away.\n# Historical 123 renewals (Japan, S.Korea, China, Norway, Mexico, Morocco...) typically took 1-5 yrs\n# from draft advancement to signature; signings cluster near expiry or at summits.\nlam_per_year = 0.5 # hazard of signing per year once draft text advanced\nwindow_years = 0.55 # Mar 2026 -\u003e Sep 10 2026 approx (but question asks as-of Sep 10)\np_sign = 1-np.exp(-lam_per_year*window_years)\nprint(\u0027naive hazard-model P(sign by Sep 10 2026) =\u0027, round(p_sign,3))\n# but conditioning on \u0027no signing announced as of Aug 2026\u0027 shrinks remaining window to ~3 weeks\nremaining = 21/365\nprint(\u0027P(sign in final 3 weeks | not signed by mid-Aug) =\u0027, round(1-np.exp(-lam_per_year*remaining),4))\n# uncertainty about whether an unannounced signing already happened Aug: add small mass\nfor p_unknown in [0.02,0.05,0.10]:\n print(\u0027total with unknown-prior\u0027, p_unknown, \u0027-\u003e\u0027, round(p_unknown + (1-p_unknown)*(1-np.exp(-lam_per_year*remaining)),3))",
"description": "Hazard-model base rate for signing within the remaining window"
},
"target_sub_questions": [
"sq4"
],
"tool_name": "code_execution"
}
]
},
"question": {
"close_time": "2026-08-19T12:00:00Z",
"description": "## Description\nThe United States and Argentina have a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement (\"123 Agreement,\" under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act) that entered into force on October 16, 1997 and is scheduled to expire on October 16, 2027. Such agreements provide the legal framework for civil nuclear trade, technology transfer, and cooperation, conditioned on nonproliferation assurances.\n\nAt the 19th meeting of the U.S.-Argentina Joint Standing Committee on Nuclear Energy Cooperation (Washington, February 25-27, 2026), both delegations, in a joint statement issued March 5, 2026, \"reaffirmed their commitment to swiftly complete negotiations on the text of a new Agreement for Cooperation ... to replace the current agreement, which expires in 2027.\" Reporting indicates a draft text was advanced at the February 2026 technical meeting, but as of August 2026 no signing has been announced; official U.S. (State/DOE) and Congressional Research Service listings still show only the 1997-2027 agreement.\n\nUnder U.S. law, after a new 123 agreement is signed it must undergo a presidential determination, transmittal to Congress, and a statutory congressional review period (typically 90 days of continuous session) before it can enter into force. Signing is therefore a distinct, earlier step than entry into force. Cooperation has been deepening (e.g. Argentina joining the U.S.-led FIRST program in September 2025, memoranda on critical mineral supply chains, and private-investment projects such as Nano Energy-Dioxitek), creating political momentum toward concluding a new agreement, but negotiations remained officially ongoing as of the latest statements, and the current agreement does not expire until October 2027, reducing time pressure for an immediate signing.\n\n`{\"format\": \"bot_tournament_question\", \"info\": {\"hash_id\": \"c3599dd53e7bd93e\", \"sheet_id\": \"171\"}}`\n\n## Resolution Criteria\nThis question resolves YES if, as of September 10, 2026 (0:00 UTC), the government of the United States and the government of Argentina have formally signed a new bilateral Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (a \"123 Agreement\" under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act). Resolution is based on an official announcement by the U.S. Department of State or U.S. Department of Energy, an official statement from the government of Argentina (e.g. the Canciller\u00eda or the office responsible for nuclear affairs), or reporting from [credible sources](https://www.metaculus.com/faq/#definitions) confirming that authorized representatives of both governments have signed the text of the new agreement. If no such signing has occurred as of that time, the question resolves NO.\n\n## Fine Print\nA mere extension of the existing 1997 agreement (rather than a newly signed replacement agreement) does not count.",
"question_type": "binary",
"title": "Will the U.S. and Argentina have signed a new 123 civil nuclear cooperation agreement as of September 10, 2026?"
},
"research": {
"cross_market_brief": "## Cross-Market Signals\n\n### Polymarket\n- \"Will the Fed increase interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.00, Volume: $6.1M\n- \"Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.01, Volume: $9.5M\n- \"Will there be no change in Fed interest rates after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.71, Volume: $8.4M\n- \"Will the Fed increase interest rates by 25 bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.28, Volume: $8.0M\n- \"Will the Fed decrease interest rates by 50+ bps after the September 2026 meeting?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.00, Volume: $5.5M\n- \"US-Iran Final Nuclear Deal by December 31, 2026?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.12, Volume: $1.7M\n- \"US announces end of Iranian blockade by September 30, 2026?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.33, Volume: $926.0K\n- \"Clarity Act (H.R.3633) signed into law in 2026?\" \u2192 Yes: 0.20, Volume: $7.2M",
"errors": [],
"has_cross_market": true,
"n_errors": 0,
"n_tools": 5,
"tools": [
{
"elapsed_s": 29.65,
"error": null,
"success": true,
"summary": "7 citations",
"tool_name": "claude_news"
},
{
"elapsed_s": 33.81,
"error": null,
"success": true,
"summary": "20 results",
"tool_name": "web_search"
},
{
"elapsed_s": 0.81,
"error": null,
"success": true,
"summary": "21 articles",
"tool_name": "article_search"
},
{
"elapsed_s": 1.83,
"error": null,
"success": true,
"summary": "3 pages",
"tool_name": "wikipedia_lookup"
},
{
"elapsed_s": 0.29,
"error": null,
"success": true,
"summary": "Hazard-model base rate for signing within the remaining wind",
"tool_name": "code_execution"
}
]
},
"synthesis": {
"error": null,
"evidence": [],
"information_gaps": [],
"key_uncertainties": [],
"n_evidence": 0
},
"timings": {
"forecast": 59.09,
"plan": 23.7,
"research": 33.81,
"synthesis": 4.78
}
}