Earlier linked PDF
- File
- 16,202 bytes
- S3 version
Hour_XOmbBysslBJu3jT9PFhKIookbu9- SHA-256
254975582c4b60134d734722818aea6b5c7ba336514349bbce075b86081f0e1c- Named outlets
- 23
- Latest expiration
- One week after event · 10:00 AM ET
Finalized YES · Linked terms later replaced
FINALIZED YES.
THEN THE LINKED TERMS CHANGED.
Kalshi finalized YES on July 26. About three days later, the general ATTEND terms PDF linked by the series was replaced with materially different language and 15 additional named outlets.
YESofficial result
205,120.93API open interest
JUL 2617:19:56 UTC
Final record: Kalshi's API lists status “finalized,” result “yes,” and settlement value $1.0000 at Jul 26, 2026, 17:19:56 UTC -- six days, 3 hours, 19 minutes, and 56 seconds after the recorded close. The result field shows the decision, not the evidence used. Open interest is a contract count, not verified customer loss. Market record ↗
Confirmed post-settlement document change
The linked terms changed after settlement.
Kalshi's KXWCATTEND series still points to one file name: CULTUREATTEND.pdf. But the object served at that link was replaced about three days and five hours after the Brad Pitt market finalized YES. A reader opening the link now sees materially different terms from the version preserved on July 23.
July 26YESFinalized 17:19:56 UTC
Replacement PDF
- File
- 25,757 bytes
- S3 version
whclRGAzzoPs_8QvwMBuwy4.yF0N9TZd- SHA-256
b084e1e57174a43272ae3db113ee37c2268590cd73ce21ddd062168f4cec8e3e- Named outlets
- 38 · fifteen more displayed
- Latest expiration
- Day after event · 11:59 PM ET
15 additional named outlets displayed
The public link changed what readers could see.
These names already appeared in the June 23 amendment filed with the CFTC before this ticker opened. The confirmed issue is not that Kalshi first invented them after settlement; it is that the series-linked PDF still served the earlier list through July 23 and switched to the expanded version only after settlement.
- Variety
- Rolling Stone
- Entertainment Weekly
- E! News
- TMZ
- Parade
- Us Weekly
- Page Six
- Gold Derby
- ESPN
- Yahoo
- The New York Post
- PBS
- The Guardian
- Business Insider
No version map. No clean audit trail.
The July 23 linked PDF named 23 outlets. The July 29 replacement names 38. The live series API separately lists 17 settlement sources. The replacement adopts much of filing 61328's source and timing language but omits that filing's explicit physical-presence and 24-hour No clarification.
Confirmed: the general terms document publicly linked to the series was replaced after settlement with materially different language.
Not established: that the Brad ticker's own API rule text changed, that the replacement was applied retroactively, that it produced the YES decision, or that the upload was made because of this dispute.
The ruling gap
Kalshi ruled YES. The public record still does not show why.
A final result is not a public explanation. The market API reports the outcome but does not name the exact qualifying report, its version and timestamp, or the ATTEND rule version applied.
YES
Finalized July 26 at 17:19:56 UTC with a $1.0000 settlement value.
Matt Damon was misidentified as Brad Pitt.
The on-air identification was corrected. AP's current coverage identifies Damon. NBC Sports still lists Pitt, but that entry shows no photograph, video, or stated source for him.
The source, rule, and version trail.
The public market record names no exact source URL, publication version, timestamp, correction treatment, NBC-versus-NBC-Sports interpretation, governing ATTEND version, or market-level history for the linked terms replacement.
Five disclosure demands
Publish the settlement record.
- The exact qualifying Source Agency report, URL, version, and publication timestamp.
- The ATTEND rule version assigned to this ticker and the applicable cutoff.
- The linked terms object's complete version history, effective dates, and notice record.
- How the correction and the NBC-versus-NBC-Sports question were treated.
- Whether Rule 7.1 review was used, when it began, and where public notice appeared.
The central problem
The title asked about attendance. The filed terms made reporting the underlying.
Those are materially different contracts: one turns on a real-world fact; the other can turn on what an approved source reported before a cutoff.
Market title
“Will Brad Pitt attend 2026 FIFA World Cup Final in 2026?”An ordinary reading asks whether Brad Pitt was physically there.View market record ↗
Defined underlying
“The Underlying for this Contract is reporting from the Source Agency.”View current linked terms ↗
The version-control problem
Three public rule surfaces do not line up.
Kalshi filed an ATTEND amendment on June 23, created this ticker on July 10 with an earlier expiration structure, and then replaced the series-linked terms PDF after the market settled. The public record does not attach a controlling version history to this ticker.
A physical-presence test and a 24-hour path to NO.
- A Source Agency must affirmatively report that the person was physically present in person.
- If none does so by the earlier of 24 hours after the scheduled start or expiration, the contract resolves No.
- The latest expiration is the day after the event ends at 11:59 PM ET.
Created July 10 with the earlier one-week clock.
- Kalshi's API records the ticker as created two days after certification.
- Its latest expiration remained July 26 at 10:00 AM ET.
- A July 23 capture of the series-linked terms still showed the earlier one-week structure and no explicit 24-hour No provision.
The public link changed after settlement.
- The replacement displayed 15 additional named outlets and a new <event> definition.
- Expiration changed to the day after the event at 11:59 PM ET, and contingency references changed to Rule 7.1.
- It still omits filing 61328's explicit physical-presence and 24-hour No clarification.
The question Kalshi must answer
Which ATTEND rule version governed KXWCATTEND-26JUL20-BRA?
Why did a market created after the amendment became eligible for implementation retain the earlier expiration structure, and why did the linked public document switch only after settlement without a market-level version map?
Kalshi should apply and explain the 24-hour No provision, identify any qualifying physical-presence report that existed before the applicable cutoff, and explain why the ticker carried a week-later expiration.
Kalshi should explain why they were assigned to a market created after certification, where that version choice was disclosed to traders, and when the amended terms were actually implemented.
What Kalshi should publish
Identify the rule. Show the implementation record.
- The filing or class submission covering this ticker, including the referenced Official Product Name and Official Receipt Date if Kalshi relied on § 40.2(d).
- Whether this ticker was individually certified, included in a valid class, or submitted for approval.
- The exact ATTEND version assigned to this ticker.
- The amendment's implementation date and required member notice.
- The complete version history of the linked terms object and whether the July 29 replacement was prospective only.
- The settlement source and methodology evaluated for this market.
- The terms displayed when the market opened and when traders purchased.
- Any CFTC stay, supplementation, or later filing affecting the amendment.
- The precise Source Agency report, version, and timestamp relied upon for the finalized Yes determination.
- What the newly recorded occurrence timestamp represents and which source record supports it.
Bottom line: The public record does not yet conclusively establish which version legally controlled this ticker. It does establish that the filed amendment, the ticker's timing fields, the July 23 linked PDF, the July 29 replacement, and the live series source list do not form one coherent public audit trail.
Record note: “Certified” does not mean the CFTC approved or endorsed the amendment. Under the self-certification process, it means the amendment became eligible to be made effective. Kalshi still needs to identify its actual implementation and notice dates. Read 17 CFR 40.6 ↗Cross-market comparison · Polymarket US
A physical-attendance rule that matched the question.
Polymarket US expressly required Brad Pitt to be physically present in the stadium during the match. Its published rule identified the official broadcast and public, authentic photographic and video evidence as the sources for that determination.
Public outcome recordNO Yes 0 · No 1 · Expired
In this site's view, that drafting more directly matched an attendance question. Polymarket's record does not legally control Kalshi's market; it illustrates the difference between an attendance-based test and a reporting-based test.
View the official Polymarket US record ↗Polymarket is not affiliated with and does not endorse this site. This comparison is based solely on publicly available market terms and records.A fact is not a report.
Whether Brad Pitt physically attended is a real-world fact. Whether an approved outlet reported that he attended is a separate question, and a report can be mistaken.
The broadcast showed Matt Damon.
The initial Brad Pitt identification was corrected to Matt Damon. The current AP account of the final also names Damon among the attendees.
The linked terms changed.
About three days after finalizing Yes, Kalshi replaced the general ATTEND terms PDF linked by the KXWCATTEND series. The replacement displayed 15 additional named outlets and materially different timing language.
Claims vs. record
What the evidence supports -- and what it doesn't.
Each status badge evaluates the quoted claim. This review compares the current AP story, AP live coverage, syndicated copies, NBC Sports' live entry, and Kalshi's filed terms. Together, those sources show what is established, what is not, and what Kalshi still needs to explain.
01Claim not supported
Claim: “Several matching headlines mean several independent confirmations.”
One wire report can create many copies.
Multiple publishers carried substantially the same Associated Press wire language. Those copies preserve evidence of an earlier AP version, but repeating one reporting chain across different domains does not create separate eyewitness confirmation.
02Claim contradicted · timing open
Claim: “The AP record never changed.”
The current AP record is different.
The current AP game story does not name Brad Pitt among the attendees, while AP's live coverage identifies Matt Damon in the stadium. Public AP page metadata shows modification before Kalshi's recorded 14:00 UTC expected expiration. Kalshi should still identify the exact version and timestamp it used.
03Claim not established
Claim: “The NBC Sports entry proves Brad Pitt physically attended.”
It proves a report existed, not the physical fact.
NBC Sports' live 'Celebrity watch' entry lists both Matt Damon and Brad Pitt, but the entry provides no photograph, video, or stated source for Pitt. It may matter under reporting-based terms; by itself, it does not independently establish physical attendance.
04Qualification not disclosed
Claim: “NBC Sports automatically qualifies as the listed source 'NBC.'”
The filed terms do not say that expressly.
The July 23 linked terms named NBC but not NBC Sports. The July 29 replacement added 15 named outlets but still did not separately name NBC Sports. That does not prove NBC Sports is excluded; it does leave Kalshi's qualification theory undisclosed.
05Document change confirmed
Claim: “The July 29 replacement proves it governed the Brad Pitt settlement.”
No. It proves the public-linked document changed after settlement.
The Brad ticker's market-specific API rule text did not change. The public record does not establish that the replacement was applied retroactively, used to settle this ticker, or uploaded because of this dispute. It does establish a serious version-control and auditability question.
Bottom line: duplicated AP wire copy is not independent corroboration; a media mention is not the same thing as visual proof; and the NBC-versus-NBC-Sports interpretation remains Kalshi's burden to explain. This audit addresses the cited public record, not anyone's motives.
This site's position
Kalshi finalized YES on July 26, then replaced the general terms document linked by the series on July 29. That does not prove retroactive application, but it deepens the disclosure problem created by presenting a factual attendance question while making reporting the underlying. A mistaken identification should not be treated as proof of physical attendance.
This site disputes the final YES determination and calls for immediate written reconsideration, publication of the controlling source, and a complete version history. The physical-attendance evidence reviewed here supports NO as an advocacy position; at minimum, it does not establish that Brad Pitt was physically present.This is an advocacy argument based on the cited record, not a legal determination.Questions to repeat
Which exact Source Agency report, URL, version, and timestamp supported YES? Which ATTEND version and cutoff governed? Why was the public-linked terms document replaced after settlement, and was that replacement prospective only? How were the correction and the NBC-versus-NBC-Sports question treated? If Rule 7.1 review was used, when did it begin and where is the required public notice?
Same-event consistencyPlease explain why the 11 other NO contracts within the same World Cup Final attendance event were finalized on July 20 despite sharing the same July 20 expected expiration and July 26 latest expiration, and what about the Brad Pitt criterion justified treating this market differently?View Kalshi same-event records ↗
Communications record
What happened when the source questions went public.
A redacted screenshot appears to show an internal Kalshi message about a customer that was accidentally sent to that customer. It is preserved as a separate communications record, not evidence that decides the settlement.
Potential legal coordination
Interested in joining a potential class action?
Add your name and email to the private interest list for possible coordination concerning KXWCATTEND-26JUL20-BRA.
This records interest only. No lawsuit, lawyer, or class has been confirmed, and submitting does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Post-settlement complaint generator
Challenge the ruling and the version gap.
Build a documented request for the source record, controlling rule, linked-document history, reconsideration, correction, and any account remedy warranted.
Before sending: replace estimates with records, attach proof, and remove anything that is not true for you.
Free to use. Your entries stay on this device.
Step 2
Your complaint draft will appear here.
Add your details, choose a destination, and tap Generate complaint draft.
Where to send it
Use the right channel.
Start with a written support record. Then use the regulator or consumer office that fits your own situation.
Attach these records
- Trade confirmation and position at close
- The rules and market page you saw
- Both linked terms versions and their SHA-256 hashes
- Source pages with visible timestamps
- Support tickets and written replies
View the source record
CFTC release on event-contract self-certification↗CFTC Staff Advisory 26-22 · PDF↗Kalshi Rule 7.1 · CFTC-filed Rulebook Version 1.18↗Live finalized Kalshi market record↗Kalshi event record observed retaining the TBD review notice after finalization↗Kalshi event metadata listing generic source domains↗Kalshi series record linking CULTUREATTEND.pdf↗Published contract page↗Current linked ATTEND terms · replaced July 29↗Preserved July 23 linked terms · exact PDF↗Preserved July 29 replacement · exact PDF↗CFTC filing 61328 · June 23 ATTEND amendment↗Polymarket US Brad Pitt market record↗Current AP account naming Matt Damon↗Current AP game story omitting Brad Pitt↗NBC Sports live Celebrity Watch entry↗Syndicated AP wire example↗Report on the broadcast correction↗CFTC complaint routes↗National state complaint directory↗