This is the first case of a critical dispute:
Here is my take:
IMO it is critical that Omen keeps market creation simple. So I think the solution is not to try to specify more and more rules within market creation. From a few years of experience with prediction markets I can tell you that trying to specify those rules makes the process INCREDIBLY hard and at the end of the day you still often have potential disputes. Just a random example - e.g. in this market had a source specified but for some reason the source on this day becomes not available.
Long story short, I think to keep Omen user friendly simply the most sensible interpretation of the question should be used. And this process/ assumptions should be documented in the rules. I think this is a very good suggestion in this direction here by @clesaege
Anyhow - lets have a look at how this process could be applied to the current case:
“Will there be a day with at least 1000 reported Corona death in the US in the first 14 days of July?”
There are various sources - most, including CDC and WHO (probably the “most official” ones) report numbers below. However, there is a credible source that reports >1000 on 2 days.
Now the first question is:
Is the market asking:
“Will there be at least one source reporting >1000 death”
Or is the market asking primarily about Corona death?
I would absolutely argue that the goal of this market is to get information about the corona death/situation and not about who is reporting what.
So if the market is about actual Corona death the next question is, how to deal with the situation that multiple sources report conflicting results. Well, also here the answer seems obvious to me: you look at what are most sources saying and potentially weight them by reputation.
Under that process to me the answer is clearly “No”!
A last comment - the market was also trading at the end much closer to “no” then to “yes” - so “no” seemed absolutely the expectation of most traders.