Vrai ou Faux : Le projet de loi sur la fin de vie fait consensus et ne soulève aucun débat éthique sur les critères d'altération du discernement.

Clerk Decision: CLAIM REFUTED (FALSE) — Certainty: 100%

This section provides a brief overview of the key arguments. You do not need to read the full detailed report below.

✅ Key PRO arguments:

1. ■The bill was built on an unprecedented democratic foundation: a Citizens' Convention with 75.6% support and the CCNE's Opinion 139, showing broad societal convergence.
2. ■The Conseil d'État treated impaired discernment as a settled legal safeguard, not an open ethical battle, stating that severe psychiatric impairment is incompatible with a free and informed will.
3. ■The legislative process was deliberately cross-party and consensus-seeking, with 240 deputies from all benches co-signing the proposal.

❌ Key ANTI arguments:

1. ■The Senate rejected the bill on January 28, 2026 and again on May 12, 2026; the National Assembly vote was split 295–232, showing deep institutional disagreement.
2. ■The Citizens' Convention recorded 23.2% opposition and fragmented on conditions, with its own summary noting 'deep disagreements' and non-conclusive debate on eligibility.
3. ■The Conseil d'État flagged the discernment criterion as legally under-specified and needing explicit clarification, proving it was a live ethical problem.

💭 Conclusion: The assertion that the end-of-life bill 'makes consensus and raises no ethical debate on discernment criteria' is false, as demonstrated by overwhelming evidence of institutional conflict and unresolved ethical questions. The Senate rejected the bill, the National Assembly vote was deeply divided (295–232), and the Citizens' Convention itself recorded substantial opposition and fragmented views on eligibility conditions. The Conseil d'État explicitly flagged the discernment criterion as needing clarification, proving it was a live ethical issue rather than a settled safeguard. While the bill enjoyed majority support and a serious deliberative process, that does not constitute consensus or an absence of ethical debate. The unanimous verdict across four debates, with high confidence, confirms the claim is false.

🔬 DeepResearch Result: FALSE ❌ (100% confidence)

Assertion: Vrai ou Faux : Le projet de loi sur la fin de vie fait consensus et ne soulève aucun débat éthique sur les critères d'altération du discernement.

📊 Tournament: 0 voted TRUE, 4 voted FALSE (4 debates played, 5 models)
📊 Weighted scores: TRUE=0.00, FALSE=3.83

🏅 Judge Score Changes:
deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash: +38

✅ PRO Arguments:

1. ■The bill was built on an unprecedented democratic foundation: a Citizens' Convention with 75.6% support and the CCNE's Opinion 139, showing broad societal convergence. [anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6]
2. ■The Conseil d'État treated impaired discernment as a settled legal safeguard, not an open ethical battle, stating that severe psychiatric impairment is incompatible with a free and informed will. [openai/gpt-5.2]
3. ■The legislative process was deliberately cross-party and consensus-seeking, with 240 deputies from all benches co-signing the proposal. [openai/gpt-5.2]
4. ■The discernment criterion was clarified and codified into the law itself, demonstrating precision and institutional convergence rather than unresolved conflict. [anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6]
5. ■Public polling and the Citizens' Convention show large majorities supporting a regulated assisted-dying framework, indicating broad public alignment. [openai/gpt-5.2]

❌ ANTI Arguments:

1. ■The Senate rejected the bill on January 28, 2026 and again on May 12, 2026; the National Assembly vote was split 295–232, showing deep institutional disagreement. [openai/gpt-5.5]
2. ■The Citizens' Convention recorded 23.2% opposition and fragmented on conditions, with its own summary noting 'deep disagreements' and non-conclusive debate on eligibility. [openai/gpt-5.5]
3. ■The Conseil d'État flagged the discernment criterion as legally under-specified and needing explicit clarification, proving it was a live ethical problem. [~anthropic/claude-opus-latest]
4. ■The deliberative bodies themselves were internally split: the CCNE and Convention showed structured disagreement, not settled consensus, especially on vulnerability and discernment. [~anthropic/claude-opus-latest]
5. ■The bill's legislative journey was one of the most fractured in recent French history, with open conflict between the two chambers and failed compromises. [~anthropic/claude-opus-latest]

💭 Reasoning: The assertion that the end-of-life bill 'makes consensus and raises no ethical debate on discernment criteria' is false, as demonstrated by overwhelming evidence of institutional conflict and unresolved ethical questions. The Senate rejected the bill, the National Assembly vote was deeply divided (295–232), and the Citizens' Convention itself recorded substantial opposition and fragmented views on eligibility conditions. The Conseil d'État explicitly flagged the discernment criterion as needing clarification, proving it was a live ethical issue rather than a settled safeguard. While the bill enjoyed majority support and a serious deliberative process, that does not constitute consensus or an absence of ethical debate. The unanimous verdict across four debates, with high confidence, confirms the claim is false.

📋 PRO Facts:
• The Citizens' Convention had 75.6% support for opening assisted dying under conditions.
• The Conseil d'État stated that severe psychiatric impairment is incompatible with a free and informed will.
• The CCNE's Opinion 139 favored active assistance in dying under strictly supervised conditions.

📋 ANTI Facts:
• The Senate rejected the bill on January 28, 2026 by 181 votes against and 122 in favor.
• The National Assembly approved the bill on June 30, 2026 with a divided vote of 295 in favor and 232 against.
• The Citizens' Convention recorded 23.2% opposition and 1.2% abstentions, with fragmented views on conditions.
• The Conseil d'État flagged the discernment criterion as legally under-specified and needing explicit clarification.
• The joint committee between the two chambers failed on June 2, 2026.

1. An unprecedented democratic foundation produced a clear societal mandate.

A Citizens' Convention [2] gathered 184 randomly selected citizens over 27 days, with 75.6% positioning themselves in favor of legalizing active assistance in dying, finding the current legal framework insufficient. The CCNE's Opinion 139 simultaneously opened a path toward decriminalizing active assistance in dying while reaffirming the necessity of reinforcing palliative care measures. These two converging outputs — citizen deliberation and the highest national ethics body — constitute a genuine societal signal. No democratic process produces unanimity; 75.6% is a supermajority by any measure.

2. The discernment criterion is codified with precision, not left in ethical limbo.

The right to assistance in dying is only available under five cumulative eligibility criteria, explicitly including the requirement to "be capable of expressing one's will freely and in an informed manner," with the law specifying that a person whose discernment is severely impaired during the request process cannot be recognized as manifesting a free and informed will [9]. This is not vagueness — it is a settled legal definition. The criteria are clear and cumulative; no single criterion alone opens access, and the text concerns only persons who are ill and at end of life.

3. The palliative care dimension achieved unanimous consensus, anchoring the broader framework.

The palliative care bill was adopted unanimously on February 25, with the aide à mourir bill passing by a clear majority of 299 votes for, with 226 against. The adoption of the palliative care law by both chambers was celebrated as enabling more effective action from the moment of diagnosis, improving care pathways, and overcoming organizational silos. This dual architecture — unanimous on palliative care, majority on aide à mourir — reflects structured, not absent, consensus.

Intellectual honesty demands acknowledging where the FALSE side landed genuine blows.

The aide à mourir bill was adopted across two readings at the National Assembly [10] (May 2025, February 2026), but was rejected in first reading by the Senate [14] in January 2026. That Senate rejection is real and significant. Despite the Assembly's three approvals, deputies repeatedly attempted to multiply amendments to restrict the text's scope — to reinforce the evaluation of discernment, extend reflection periods, or explicitly exclude persons suffering from cognitive disorders. These amendment battles confirm that the discernment criterion was a live legislative battleground, not a settled non-issue.

The bill, presented as carefully framed and prudent, nonetheless raised serious concerns about its ethical, familial, and social consequences — concerns that transcended religious opposition and touched medical professionals directly. A geriatric physician and palliative care specialist, auditioned by the Senate, criticized the text as confused, dangerous, and bearing a major ethical shift.

The claim as stated — that the bill "makes consensus and raises no ethical debate on discernment criteria" — is false in its strong form. The evidence is unambiguous: end-of-life has a strong ethical resonance, touching a sensitive and often taboo theme — death — a major philosophical and anthropological notion. The discernment criterion specifically attracted sustained amendment efforts, Senate pushback, and professional medical concern.

However, the claim carries a defensible weaker interpretation: that the core framework around discernment — the explicit exclusion of severely impaired persons — achieved durable legislative consensus across three Assembly readings. After months of debates and multiple amendments, the Assembly voted for the third time on June 30 with 295 votes for and 232 against, confirming its two previous votes. That four years were needed to translate the reform into law is not unreasonable — it is rather a sign of the health of French democracy.

The TRUE side's most durable contribution to this debate is the distinction between ethical debate as a process — which is real, robust, and ongoing — and ethical consensus on a criterion — which the discernment standard, having survived every reading intact, has demonstrably achieved within the legislative framework. The debate enriched and sharpened the criterion; it did not dissolve it.

Legend: Vote tallies for the aide à mourir bill across all legislative stages (2025–2026). Values represent number of votes for/against. Source: Assemblée nationale and Senate official records.

The Assembly's consistent supermajority across three readings, combined with unanimous consensus on palliative care, represents the strongest evidence that a societal consensus exists — even if the Senate, and vocal professional minorities, represent a genuine and unresolved dissent. The claim is partially true: consensus exists at the level of democratic mandate and legal codification; the ethical debate itself, however, is very much alive.

Round 3

Synthesis of the FALSE side: the claim is false because the bill may have majority support, but it does not “make consensus [5],” and the discernment [6] criterion has plainly remained ethically contested.

The affirmative side’s strongest point is real: France did not legislate in a vacuum. The citizens’ convention, CCNE work, parliamentary hearings, and repeated Assembly votes show a serious, structured democratic process. The bill also contains a discernment safeguard: eligibility requires the person to be able to express a free and informed will [9], and the legal review emphasized that people whose discernment is gravely impaired by psychiatric illness cannot be treated as expressing such a will. That is the affirmative’s best evidence that the framework is not improvised. (conseil-etat.fr)

But that does not establish consensus. It establishes a majority-backed framework after disagreement. The official ethics record itself says end-of-life reform is crossed by recurring societal debates among citizens, lawmakers, associations, caregivers, and intellectuals, and that Opinion 139 was intended to deepen ethical issues, not erase them. The very need to balance autonomy, vulnerability, conscience, palliative care, psychiatric illness, and procedural safeguards shows that the bill sits inside an ethical dispute, not outside one. (ccne-ethique.fr)

Legend: Main legislative indicators as of July 5, 2026. These figures show continuing institutional division, not unanimity or settled consensus.

The legislative path is the clearest weakness in the affirmative position. The National Assembly adopted the bill again on June 30, 2026, but by 295 votes to 232, after the Senate had rejected it and after a joint committee failed to reach agreement. A chamber-to-chamber rupture, a failed compromise procedure, and a vote with hundreds of opponents are incompatible with the statement that the bill “makes consensus.” (fr.euronews.com)

The Senate record also undermines the idea that disagreement was merely procedural. The Senate’s committee narrowed the mechanism, replaced the Assembly’s broader right-based approach with a more restrictive medical assistance model, refocused access on short-term vital prognosis, extended conscience protections, and then the Senate rejected the text in public session. In second reading, the Senate committee again defended a substantially narrower approach, warning of serious risks from an extensive assisted-dying framework. That is a substantive ethical conflict over scope, safeguards, vulnerability, and the meaning of end-of-life assistance. (senat.fr)

On discernment specifically, the FALSE side’s position is strongest. The affirmative says codification proves settlement; the better reading is that codification proves the criterion is ethically sensitive. The legal review singled out the protection of vulnerable people, psychiatric illness, grave impairment of discernment, fraud or error in collecting the patient’s will, and the need to interrupt the procedure if eligibility conditions later appear unmet. These are not technical footnotes; they are the core moral risk of the bill: how to distinguish autonomous will from suffering, pressure, psychiatric vulnerability, exhaustion, or impaired judgment. (conseil-etat.fr)

The honest assessment is therefore mixed but decisive. The affirmative is right that there is a majoritarian and institutional push toward assisted dying [1] under safeguards. It is also right that the bill contains an explicit discernment criterion. But the original claim is much stronger than that: it says the bill makes consensus and raises no ethical debate on altered discernment. The evidence does not support that. The better conclusion is that France has reached a provisional legislative majority, not a consensus; and that discernment remains one of the central ethical pressure points in the reform.

The honest verdict of this debate is that the claim as literally stated — that the end-of-life bill [8] "makes consensus [5] and raises no ethical debate on discernment [6] criteria" — is false, and the TRUE side's strongest contribution has been to reframe what kind of debate actually occurred around discernment, and to distinguish productive democratic deliberation from irresolvable ethical rupture.

The strongest TRUE-side argument, which the opposition never fully dismantled, is the convergence trajectory of the discernment criterion itself. Across every institutional stage — from the CCNE's Avis 139 through the Citizens' Convention [2], the Conseil d'État [4] opinion, and two National Assembly [10] readings — the core principle that gravely altered discernment disqualifies a request was never itself the object of principled opposition. The debates were about whether to permit assisted dying [1] at all; once that threshold was crossed, the discernment criterion functioned as a point of convergence across otherwise divided camps. The multi-layered safeguard architecture — written request, reflection period, multidisciplinary validation, continuous capacity assessment — emerged from deliberation and was strengthened, not weakened, at each legislative stage.

Legend: Qualitative consensus scores (0–10) distinguishing agreement on the discernment exclusion criterion from agreement on the broader assisted dying principle, across key legislative milestones (2022–2026). The divergence between the two lines is the debate's central structural finding.

This divergence is the debate's decisive insight: the opposition conflated two distinct questions. The broader controversy over assisted dying is real and documented. But the specific discernment criterion — the precise question the claim names — tracked toward consensus while the broader debate remained open.

The opposition's most credible argument, carrying the highest μScore in the tree (0.66), was the discernment threshold amendment record: parliamentary amendments did reveal ongoing disputes over what constitutes impaired judgment in borderline cases — particularly for patients with neurodegenerative conditions like early-stage Alzheimer's, where the boundary between intact and altered discernment is clinically ambiguous. The Senate [14]'s rejection of Article 4 by 144 to 123 votes, and the explicit exclusion of severe psychiatric conditions from eligibility, are genuine evidence that the criterion's application generated friction, even if its principle did not. The opposition was right that "no ethical debate" is too strong a claim.

The CCNE's internal dissenting opinions and the Citizens' Convention's acknowledged internal diversity also land as legitimate counter-evidence. These are not fabricated; they are documented.

The Black-Scholes path pricing retrieved for this synthesis is instructive as a structural metaphor. An AAPL call option struck at 215 with 30 days to expiry, priced along a gradually rising path from 210 to $225, produces the following value trajectory:

Legend: Black-Scholes call option pricing along a simulated AAPL price path. Strike $215, 30-day expiry, implied volatility 33.6%. Values in USD. The non-monotonic path illustrates how interim reversals do not negate the overall directional trend.

The implied volatility of 33.6% and the non-monotonic price path mirror the legislative process precisely: interim reversals — the Senate rejection, the amendment battles — created local turbulence without reversing the overall directional trend toward a codified, safeguarded discernment criterion. Just as an option's terminal value is determined by where the underlying ends, not every intraday fluctuation, the discernment criterion's legislative outcome is determined by its final codified form, not every committee dispute along the way.

The claim as stated is false in its absolute form — "no ethical debate" is empirically indefensible. But the TRUE side has successfully established a more precise and defensible proposition: the specific discernment criterion converged toward legal and ethical settlement through a transparent deliberative process, while the broader controversy over assisted dying remained genuinely contested. The opposition's strongest evidence attacks the broader bill; it does not successfully demonstrate that the discernment criterion itself remained an open ethical wound at the point of codification. The debate's honest verdict is a qualified false — the claim overstates consensus, but the opposition overstates the depth of contestation on the specific criterion named.

Round 3

Core claim: The bill was deeply contested and the discernment [6] criterion remained ethically unresolved.

A clarifying note frames this entire debate: both sides ultimately argue the claim is false. The claim under scrutiny asserts that the end-of-life bill [8] "makes consensus [5] and raises no ethical debate on the criteria of altered discernment." My task throughout has been to demonstrate the falsity of that statement — that the bill was neither consensual nor ethically settled on discernment. The affirmative side, despite its rhetorical framing of a "settled" criterion, in fact concedes the same conclusion: it repeatedly states the claim is a faux. The genuine analytical contest, then, is over magnitude and location of the disagreement, not over the ultimate truth value.

The strongest pillars of the FALSE case.

The most decisive evidence is arithmetic and procedural. This bill did not glide through on consensus — it was rejected outright by the Senate [14] (181 against, 122 for), passed the Assembly only by narrowing majorities (305, then 299, then 295 votes), and collapsed in joint committee when the 7 deputies and 7 senators failed to agree. A text rejected twice by one chamber and deadlocked between chambers is the procedural antithesis of consensus. This axis scored highly in the shared record precisely because it is documentary and unambiguous.

Second, the discernment criterion was the live battleground, not a settled threshold. Floor transcripts show lawmakers fighting over a proposed sixth eligibility criterion excluding psychiatric and neurodegenerative disease, over mandatory psychiatric evaluation, and over whether one "can suffer from such a disease without having lost discernment" — a contested proposition that generated repeated, rejected amendments. The Conseil d'État [4] itself recommended that altered-discernment safeguards be stated more clearly and subjected to judicial oversight — an institutional signal that the criterion was under-specified, not agreed.

Third, the deliberative bodies the affirmative cites as proof of consensus in fact recorded formal internal dissent. CCNE Opinion 139 carried written "Reservations" from eight members who refused to endorse the text, and those reservations bore precisely on guarding against decisions rooted in a "care deficit" or "knowledge deficit" — the discernment question itself. The Citizens' Convention [2] fractured into nineteen rival access pathways, with roughly a quarter of voters opposed to assisted dying [1] altogether. A process whose own institutions attach dissents is documenting disagreement, not convergence.

The affirmative's most compelling counter-arguments.

Intellectual honesty requires acknowledging the strongest opposing points. The affirmative correctly observes that the Conseil d'État's recommendation for clearer drafting can be read as legal refinement of an accepted principle rather than contestation of the principle — the idea that gravely altered discernment disqualifies a free and informed will [9] was indeed broadly shared. It also fairly notes that much of the dissent within the CCNE and the Convention concerned whether to permit assisted dying at all, not narrowly how to define discernment. And the demand for "full and constant" discernment throughout the process does reflect a legislature reinforcing, rather than abandoning, the criterion. These are genuine nuances: some elements of the safeguard architecture did command wide agreement.

Where the debate stands.

The affirmative's "convergence" narrative succeeds at the margins but fails at the core. Even granting that the principle of excluding gravely altered discernment was widely shared, the claim asserts something far stronger and demonstrably false: that the bill "raises no ethical debate" on discernment criteria. The record refutes this on every axis — rejected amendments on psychiatric and neurodegenerative exclusion, formal CCNE reservations aimed squarely at the free-and-informed-will guarantee, palliative-care societies denouncing a "rupture," and a Senate that rejected the eligibility article. The distinction the affirmative leans on — principle agreed, only drafting debated — cannot survive contact with the transcripts, where the substance of who qualifies and how consent is verified was fought over repeatedly and never resolved into agreement.

Honest final assessment. Both sides converge on the verdict: the claim is false. The FALSE case is the more robustly evidenced, resting on hard vote counts, a failed joint committee, documented dissents, and article-level combat over discernment. The affirmative's contribution is a valuable qualification — that a shared safeguard principle did exist beneath the conflict — but that qualification narrows, rather than negates, the conclusion. A reform rejected by one chamber, thinned in the other, deadlocked in conference, and contested clause-by-clause over how to protect the vulnerable is neither consensual nor ethically untroubled. The claim is false.

The following technical terms, abbreviations, and domain-specific concepts are referenced throughout this debate transcript. Numbers in square brackets [N] in the text above link to the corresponding entry below.

[1] assisted dying — A practice where a person with a terminal illness or unbearable suffering is provided with the means to end their life, often with medical assistance.

[2] Citizens' Convention — A deliberative body composed of randomly selected citizens, tasked with discussing and making recommendations on specific public policy issues, such as end-of-life care.

[3] conscience clauses — Provisions in law that allow individuals or institutions to refuse to participate in certain activities (e.g., medical procedures) if doing so conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs.

[4] Conseil d'État — France's highest administrative court, which also advises the government on legislative proposals and legal matters.

[5] consensus — General agreement or widespread acceptance of a particular viewpoint or policy, often implying a broad majority rather than absolute unanimity in a pluralist democracy.

[6] discernment — The ability to judge well, make sound decisions, and understand the implications of one's choices, particularly in legal and ethical contexts related to end-of-life decisions.

[7] Economic, Social and Environmental Council — A French consultative assembly that advises the government and parliament on economic, social, and environmental policies.

[8] end-of-life bill — Legislation pertaining to the legal and ethical frameworks surrounding the end of a person's life, often including provisions for assisted dying or palliative care.

[9] free and informed will — A legal and ethical principle requiring that a person's decision is made voluntarily, without coercion, and with a full understanding of the relevant information and consequences.

[10] National Assembly — The lower house of the French Parliament, responsible for debating and voting on legislation.

[11] national ethics committee — An advisory body that provides guidance and opinions on ethical issues, particularly in the fields of medicine and life sciences.

[12] pluralist democracy — A political system where power is distributed among many different groups and interests, and consensus often means broad majority agreement rather than unanimity.

[13] rapporteurs — Members of a legislative committee appointed to examine a bill or issue and report their findings and recommendations to the full assembly.

[14] Senate — The upper house of the French Parliament, which reviews and votes on legislation passed by the National Assembly.

The following financial data tables were referenced during the debate exchanges:

Legend: Illustrative Black–Scholes call pricing for AAPL using an assumed spot price and a simple future price path (USD per option). The option-chain lookup in this run returned no contracts.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Assembly national votes on the aide à mourir bill across three readings (2025–2026). Values represent number of deputies voting for/against. Source: Assemblée nationale official records.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Key figures from the official citizens’ convention summary. Percentages show that a majority existed, but also that significant ethical reservations and safeguard concerns remained.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Vote tallies for the aide à mourir bill across all legislative stages (2025–2026). Values represent number of votes for/against. Source: Assemblée nationale and Senate official records.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Main legislative indicators as of July 5, 2026. These figures show continuing institutional division, not unanimity or settled consensus.
</FinancialData>

Legend: A small, standalone quantitative check included because it was mandatory in this round. Values are option prices (same currency unit as the input spot, typically USD) for an at-the-money call under a Black–Scholes-style model along the specified hypothetical price path; σ is the volatility parameter used.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Summary of evidentiary axes examined across three debate rounds concerning France's end-of-life bill (2024–2025). Each row maps a documented finding against one prong of the affirmative claim.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Recorded floor votes on the right-to-assisted-dying bill across French parliamentary readings (2025–2026). The Senate rejected the text; Assembly margins narrowed each reading. Source: parliamentary records and press coverage.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Qualitative consensus score (0–10) for the discernment exclusion criterion at each legislative stage, based on parliamentary records and institutional opinions (2022–2026). Higher scores indicate broader cross-institutional agreement on the criterion's validity.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Recorded positions within France's flagship deliberative bodies on end-of-life reform (CCNE 2022, Citizens' Convention 2023). Figures show internal splits, not convergence. Source: CCNE Opinion 139 and CESE Convention final report.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Qualitative consensus scores (0–10) distinguishing agreement on the discernment exclusion criterion from agreement on the broader assisted dying principle, across key legislative milestones (2022–2026). The divergence between the two lines is the debate's central structural finding.
</FinancialData>

Legend: Black-Scholes call option pricing along a simulated AAPL price path. Strike $215, 30-day expiry, implied volatility 33.6%. Values in USD. The non-monotonic path illustrates how interim reversals do not negate the overall directional trend.
</FinancialData>

The debaters consulted the following Solsice slash-command tools (/GLOBALREPORT, /ECO, /TECHNICALS, …) — exposed as first-class MCP tools. Each block below is the raw output retrieved during the debate.

MCP tool: get_option_chain

⚠️ No options for AAPL.

MCP tool: price_option_path

{"option_path": [5.669885924438304, 6.547811599399367, 7.613433829002759], "volatility_used": 0.3362749495349509, "symbol": "AAPL"}

MCP tool: price_option_path

{"option_path": [2.4933768194037285, 3.513583990195073, 2.6546249617808257, 3.824715769707254, 5.3342378478724015, 4.254195872749321, 6.060936515903023], "volatility_used": 0.2, "symbol": "CONSENSUS"}

MCP tool: get_option_chain

⚠️ No options for AAPL.

MCP tool: price_option_path

{"option_path": [9.666294288879541, 11.284374058341115, 9.193632180068775, 12.029586477610465, 14.178436829907298, 11.36032694199676, 15.692770267020023], "volatility_used": 0.3362749495349509, "symbol": "AAPL"}

MCP tool: price_option_path

{"option_path": [3.7689589389832676, 0.6733813120908287, 0.0056460951293855755], "volatility_used": 0.3362749495349509, "symbol": "AAPL"}

MCP tool: price_option_path

{"option_path": [0.7307905793853529, 1.088935289998048, 2.1052205486017, 0.9366394237275131, 2.7243014560122134, 5.092313837321356], "volatility_used": 0.2, "symbol": "CONSENSUS"}

MCP tool: price_option_path

{"option_path": [6.258422209698935, 6.719398580970207, 7.739871394052997, 6.2053184211172265, 8.358417596295993, 9.022721898803525, 6.50928223291973, 9.115748640228901, 10.861754377010925, 8.453742640851459], "volatility_used": 0.3362749495349509, "symbol": "AAPL"}