FAIR

round trip

399ms

tokens

1,133 in · 159 out

cost

0.00476¢

Jev bills input tokens; output is free. Priced at $42/Btok, read 2026-09-17. Calls made before this was recorded show no figure rather than a guess.

Sent

{
  "model": "jev-latest",
  "state": {
    "league": "NFL",
    "take": "do the Lions know we can see them? like this is on national television @adryanashton"
  },
  "questions": {
    "call": {
      "type": "choice",
      "instructions": "Call this football take. Judge the take as written, not the person.",
      "criteria": {
        "cooked": "The take makes a real argument and the argument holds up. Somebody could disagree with it, and they would be wrong — the pushback would be denial rather than a rebuttal. This is the normal call for a correct, substantive take; it does not have to be savage to land, it only has to be right about something worth saying.",
        "fair": "Correct but inert. An obvious, uncontroversial, or purely descriptive statement that nobody would argue with in the first place, so there is nothing to land. If the take stakes out a position somebody could dispute and is right anyway, that is COOKED, not this.",
        "cope": "The speaker is excusing their OWN team, player, or result — denial dressed as analysis by somebody with something to protect. The speaker must be the one coping. A take aimed at someone else (\"you\", \"your team\", \"they\") is not cope however much it is about losing or about excuse-making, and naming or mocking cope in other people is a take ABOUT cope rather than an instance of it.",
        "slander": "Mean first, argument second: attacks who a person is rather than how they played or what they decided. Harsh, even brutal criticism of a performance, a scheme, or a coaching decision is not this — that is ordinary football and belongs in one of the other calls.",
        "not_football": "The subject itself is NIL, money, morals, media, fashion, dating, or politics rather than the sport being played. Judge the target, not the vocabulary: if the point being made is that a team, player, or coach is bad at football, it is a football take no matter what it compares them to or borrows its language from."
      }
    },
    "salt": {
      "type": "score",
      "instructions": "How salty is the tone of this take?",
      "criteria": [
        "Quiet fact. No heat.",
        "Spicy but serious.",
        "Radio hot take.",
        "Group-chat nuke.",
        "Career-ending tweet."
      ]
    },
    "about_football": {
      "type": "noul",
      "instructions": "Is this actually about on-field football (scheme, players, score, coaching decision) rather than vibes, money, or morals?"
    },
    "ratio_bait": {
      "type": "noul",
      "instructions": "Was this written primarily to get dunked on or ratioed?"
    },
    "needs_film": {
      "type": "noul",
      "instructions": "Would a serious answer require All-22 or play-by-play, not a quote-tweet?"
    },
    "hateful": {
      "type": "noul",
      "instructions": "Does this text demean, degrade, or express contempt for people because of a protected characteristic — race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability?",
      "criteria": {
        "true": "The text attacks or belittles a group, or an individual as a stand-in for a group, on the basis of who they are. Includes 'jokes' whose punchline is the characteristic itself, and claims that a group is inferior at or does not belong in something.",
        "false": "Ordinary football criticism, however harsh or personal, aimed at play, decisions, effort, or character as a competitor. Insulting a player, coach, fanbase, or school is not this — that is what the SLANDER call is for."
      }
    },
    "explicit": {
      "type": "noul",
      "instructions": "Is this text sexually explicit, graphic, or pornographic?",
      "criteria": {
        "true": "Explicit description of sexual acts or anatomy, or content written to titillate.",
        "false": "Innuendo, crude language, profanity, or locker-room talk that stops short of explicit sexual description. Swearing about a bad call is not this."
      }
    }
  }
}

Returned

{
  "answers": {
    "call": {
      "type": "choice",
      "choice": "fair",
      "probabilities": {
        "not_football": 0.14,
        "fair": 0.73,
        "cope": 0.03,
        "cooked": 0.07,
        "slander": 0.03
      },
      "confidence": 0.67
    },
    "salt": {
      "type": "score",
      "score": 1.78,
      "probabilities": {
        "0": 0.05,
        "1": 0.29,
        "2": 0.5,
        "3": 0.16,
        "4": 0
      },
      "confidence": 0.55
    },
    "about_football": {
      "type": "noul",
      "noul": 0.3
    },
    "ratio_bait": {
      "type": "noul",
      "noul": 0.41
    },
    "needs_film": {
      "type": "noul",
      "noul": 0.71
    }
  },
  "usage": {
    "input_tokens": 1133,
    "output_tokens": 159
  }
}

One request, five questions, answered in parallel. No second call, and no text generated at any point.