Maritime desk

The record’s date

Sources through 29 Oct; the issuing-authority documents through 28 Oct; the market sensor through 6 Oct.

What this record is

The Strait of Hormuz — the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which roughly a fifth of the world's oil passes.

Why we keep a record on it. We hold 901 documents from 186 outlets over 43 active days. It runs through 18 coverage domains we watch, including Africa, Australia Economy, Aviation. 33 market questions price outcomes under the event bound to it. Our first document on this subject is dated Sep 14, 2026; the count above is everything since.

What it is not. Our attention, not the world's state. Every count here is a count of what our own sweep collected about hormuz. 186 outlets in our declared source universe — not the whole internet. Market prices are the venue's number, cited and graded as an outside sensor. We publish no probability of our own on this record.

How complete this record is: full. It meets 3 of 3 conditions: a first-party issuer document read from the issuer itself; a claim carried from three or more separate origins; at least one market question bound to this record.

The press archive: scope, views and limits

Computed Oct 29; last re-checked Oct 29. Each claim below carries its own first-seen date.

Scope, first: 4728 articles archived by our sweeps between 2026-08-25 and 2026-10-29 — secondary press; this news ledger does not read primary feeds, which the record reads separately in its primary-source layer (UKMTO / JMIC advisory notes, NAVAREA IX navigational warnings) with their own dates. Everything here speaks for that archive only. A claim is scored by how many separate reports assert it; copies of one wire story count once. Agreement between reports is not proof. The “why” is a view, listed with who said it, never averaged.

A receipt links the archived article where we read the claim, often a roundup, so a receipt’s own headline can differ from the claim it carries. All 3,369 sentences are listed under “What separate sources agree on”, folded.

Outside reporting, newest captured

• 28 Oct

  Middle East conflict: Iran says discussing plan with mediators to end war, reopen Hormuz; UAE’s Gargash urges restraint

  gulfnews · outlet

  gulfnews▸
• 30 Sep

  Hormuz closure a fatal blow for Dubai and Abu Dhabi transhipment volumes

  The Loadstar · outlet

  The Loadstar▸

The views: how different outlets explain it

Each with who said it, never averaged. The 3 with the most separate articles:

• 4 articles

  Trump has cited preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear bomb as a key goal of the war, along with ending its ability to attack its neighbours and creating conditions for Iranians to topple their leadership.

  Said by al-monitor — middle east, daily sabah economy

  Where from▸
• 3 articles

  A campaign of heavy bombardment failed to bring a decisive close to the war launched by the US and Israel in late February, and Washington in recent weeks has dialled back military operations in favour of economic pressure.

  Said by foreign policy, france 24 - international breaking news, top stories and headlines

  Where from▸
• 3 articles

  By targeting infrastructure and disrupting investment events central to Saudi Arabia's economic ambitions, they aim to pressure Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to both meet Houthi demands in Yemen and persuade US President Donald Trump to ease the US blockade choking Iran's economy, according to Saudi, Iranian and regional sources.

  Said by al-monitor — middle east

  Where from▸

• Consensus measures reporting agreement, not reality — a uniformly repeated error passes any count.
• Chains are collapsed by syndication tracing; residual shared-upstream risk remains.
• Retroactive: computed 2026-10-29 over the archive, not tracked live.
• Receipt gate: 78 extracted claim(s) excluded — no receipt whose own text supports the claim (the extractor's row binding is verified mechanically, never trusted).
• Relative-anchor supersession: 2 claim(s) that described themselves as the most recent/last-known fact were retired because a claim from the SAME reporting thread, naming the same participants and the same measured quantity, describes a later instance of that subject — see 'retired'. Subject-matched, same-chain detection only: an anchor claim updated by a DIFFERENT outlet is not auto-retired, though its own firstSeen/lastSeen still render so a reader can judge its age.
• Relative-anchor supersession: 11412 later same-thread claim(s) were NOT treated as replacing an anchored claim: 8136 are about different participants, a different measured quantity or a forecast, 3272 could not be read role for role or period for period, 0 compare against another time, 1 characterize or restate the same value and 3 report an earlier or the same period. A claim is replaced here only by a later report on the same participants and the same measured quantity, for a later period; every other pair keeps both claims standing.
• Questions: 13 extracted sentence(s) were questions (a headline asking, e.g. "Trump asked on TruthSocial 'When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight?'"), not assertions, and take no claim standing in any tier.
• Literal-span counting (#1036): 538 extracted claim(s) were receipted by sentences that do not all assert the same proposition, and were split into 1266 separate claims, each counted only on the sources whose own sentence asserts it. Every count, disagreement and replacement here is decided on the sources' own words; the extractor's sentence is kept as a labelled paraphrase and decides nothing.
• Domain-competence gate: 2699 kernel claim(s) and 388 frame(s) excluded — every supporting chain came from outlets confidently placed outside this subject's coverage domains (aerospace_defense, auto, energy, europe_politics, india_south_asia, iran_regime, …). An outlet counts as competent when its measured home beat intersects the domains the subject's own corpus lives in; outlets with too few observations are never branded and always count.
• Semantic-dome membership: 10464 kernel claim(s) and 2399 frame(s) were source-faithful but failed typed-signature membership and are excluded — a claim enters this ledger only if its signature names a family entity (party, place, or authority) AND either its action class sits in the family's geopolitical profile or it names a family place outright.
• An item is published only when it is RECEIPTED: the outlet's own source link AND the source's exact words (verbatim: a literal span of the stored document, offsets into it, content-addressed by docId). The claim text is the extracted proposition and is never a quote. Anything else is UNRECEIPTED: retained, counted here by reason, never shown; every published count is computed from receipted items only.
• Disagreement pairing: 10 candidate pair(s) with overlapping words and different numbers were NOT shown as disagreements: 4 report separate incidents or readings (another named date or time, another vessel, or reported on another day), 6 assert different propositions (another party or quantity) and 0 could not be matched role for role. Two reports disagree here only when they give different values for the same actor, counterparty, quantity and incident: the same named date, or the same report day when no date is named.
• Event grouping (event@2): 3369 claim(s) are source sentences; 314 were grouped into 134 multi-sentence event(s) and 1977 matched no other claim, giving 2111 event(s). 1078 claim(s) could not be matched (untyped action class, no participant read, or no report day), so their count stays per sentence: could not match is not single source. The rule is mechanical and conservative (same typed action, shared participants and wording, no different named person or market, first seen within 1 day, no conflicting date, time, vessel, means (mine, missile, drone, boarding, gunfire) or value, every member matched to one anchor), so it under-groups: it measures reporting agreement about one incident, not verification.

Our coverage

What our own machinery collected and how closely it watches. These measure our attention, not the strait.

• Documents

  901

  From 186 outlets. Documents arrived on 43 days between 14 Sept 2026 and 29 Oct 2026. Market questions are not counted, because a question is not reporting.

  186 outlets, documents on 43 days▸

• How closely we watch

  steady →

  Our coverage of Hormuz is 5% below its 3-week baseline, sustained. This measures our attention — how much our tracked set is writing about it — not the strait's operational status.

  our attention metric▸

• Days with an attention reading

  168 days

  In the latest collection (29 Oct 2026), 130 signals in 34 of our coverage areas mention it.

• Market questions on the event

  33

  The Strait of Hormuz event has carried 33 market questions since 24 May 2026, last priced 22 Oct 2026.

  Strait of Hormuz▸

What changed, and when

The ledger holds 3 recorded changes for Hormuz, the most recent on Oct 27, 2026. Each one is a change in how closely we are watching, written the moment we observed it, never backfilled and never edited after the fact. The ledger began recording 2026-07-19; earlier states were tracked but not ledgered, and are not backfilled.

• 17 Oct

  How closely we watch: changed from rising to steady

  observed Oct 17, 8:52 AM PT · prior state held since Oct 15, 9:01 AM PT

• 20 Oct

  How closely we watch: changed from steady to rising

  observed Oct 20, 8:58 AM PT · prior state held since Oct 17, 8:52 AM PT

• 27 Oct

  How closely we watch: changed from rising to steady

  observed Oct 27, 9:00 AM PT · prior state held since Oct 20, 8:58 AM PT

Every market question

What prediction markets price: belief, not fact, and never proof that something happened. We cite the venues as a sensor and publish no probability of our own. Our public grading of that sensor scores those prices against how reality resolved.

8 market questions ride this record, newest price stamp Oct 29, 2026: 5 still open by their own deadline, 3 past it and kept as recorded. A price is the venue's number, cited as one outside sensor and graded against how reality resolved; it is never a probability of ours.

Our read

• ● measured

  What the issuing authorities say. UKMTO / JMIC advisory notes reports Update 106, dated 18 october; NAVAREA IX navigational warnings reports 416/26, dated 28 Oct 2026. Read from the issuer Oct 29, 2026.

• ● measured

  How well the claims are supported. Of 10 claims about Hormuz on the record in the current window (Oct 23, 2026 – Oct 29, 2026), 3 are corroborated by three or more separate origins, 4 are reported by two separate origins and 3 rest on a single source. The strongest: “Middle East conflict: Iran says discussing plan with mediators to end war, reopen Hormuz; UAE’s Gargash urges restraint” (corroborated; carried by 5 publishers from 5 separate origins · 1 wire (Reuters), earliest Oct 28, 2026); “Iran Says 7 Oil Tankers Hit In One Night In Strait Of Hormuz As Fears Of Return To War Grow” (corroborated; carried by 3 publishers from 3 separate origins, earliest Oct 23, 2026). These count claims in this window; the press archive's ladder, in the single-source line of this read, counts events over the whole archive.

• ● measured

  What rests on one source. 2028 of the 2111 events in this record's press archive (its 3369 who/what/when/where sentences, grouped by the incident they report) rest on a single reporting chain: reported once, and not repeated by anyone who did not copy it. Another 1078 sentences the event rule could not place, so each counts on its own sources and is never folded into single source. They are held, and they are not corroboration.

• Not yet read

  What contradicts. No claim on this record sits beside a live report that gives a different answer about the same incident. That counts live claims only, after any replacement, and only pairs our test could match incident for incident.

• ● measured

  Where reports give different numbers. No claim on this record sits beside a live report that gives a different answer about the same incident. That counts live claims only, after any replacement, and only pairs our test could match incident for incident.

• ● measured

  What changed. The ledger holds 3 recorded changes for Hormuz, the most recent on Oct 27, 2026. Each one is a change in how closely we are watching, written the moment we observed it, never backfilled and never edited after the fact. We do not yet diff against a previously published copy of this record; what stands is the ledger's own dated transitions.

• ● measured

  The outside sensor, beside our record. Side by side, unreconciled: a venue prices “US-Iran Hormuz Agreement by December 31?” at 39% (polymarket, Oct 29, 2026), while our own record holds 3 claims corroborated by three or more separate origins (of 10 claims in all: 4 are reported by two separate origins and 3 rest on a single source). The price is the venue's number and we publish it as one; we do not blend it into ours, and we hold no probability of our own on this record.

• ● measured

  Earlier documents on file. Earlier documents on file: Corroboration & context, latest dated May 2024 (NAVAREA P 1540/2024). The read above does not rest on them.

What this record does not tell you

Standing limits of the method, true of every run:

• The first-party maritime and government issuers behind this record are identified and verified — UKMTO/JMIC on a 1–3 day cadence, NAVAREA IX daily. An automated daily fetch re-verifies each source; a stamp moves only on a confirmed fetch, and a content change on the tripwire pair (UKMTO / JMIC advisory notes / NAVAREA IX navigational warnings) raises an alert for human review rather than silently refreshing. Each row says which date it speaks for, and nothing updates silently.
• The coverage regime measures our declared source universe (144 actively-scraped verticals — definitions on the API page), not the whole internet, and it is our attention — not the strait's status.
• Cadence, stated plainly: the record refreshes on a daily sweep with intraday market updates. It is maintained, not instantaneous.

Verify it yourself

This page, GET /api/record/hormuz and the get_topic_record tool are assembled by one builder, so what you fetch is what you are reading. One honest distinction: get_entity("hormuz") returns the broader live entity dossier — a different, complementary object, not this record.

Served to machines as the resource sb://exhibit/hormuz, and through the API and MCP.

REST

curl -s https://api.signalbureau.ai/api/record/hormuz

MCP

curl -s https://api.signalbureau.ai/api/mcp -X POST -H 'content-type: application/json' \
  -d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"tools/call","params":{"name":"get_topic_record","arguments":{"subject":"hormuz"}}}'

Where this record comes from

This record reads as of 29 Oct 2026, assembled 29 Oct 2026. Its version number is sb.tr-88d336bf, computed from the sections above, so it changes only when the record’s content changes.

Informational only, never financial, legal, or investment advice.