Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Whitcomb challenges the Market Permit Review Office’s denial of application MW-2846 as late. The stated deadline was 5:00 p.m. Elena asks that the late-filing denial be withdrawn and that the application be reviewed on its merits. She does not ask this tribunal to guarantee that a permit will issue. 2. The parties were given an opportunity to explain their positions and identify supporting proof. Elena’s side ultimately acknowledged that it has no independent proof of the exact final submission time. The agency says its system does not record that time and relies on the application’s appearance in a processing queue at 5:12 p.m. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether the record supports Elena’s request to withdraw the late-filing denial. Elena bears the burden of pointing to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting the relief she seeks under Rule 1, “The Claim Needs Proof.” Rule 45, “Agency Decisions Need Record Support,” also requires separating an agency’s finding from what the record actually establishes. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena argues that a processing time is not a submission time. She relies on a saved portal screenshot showing activity on application MW-2846 at 4:56 p.m., while expressly accepting that it records only a supporting-document upload. She says the record does not establish that she filed late and asks only for review on the merits. 5. The agency argues that the application appeared in the processing queue at 5:12 p.m. and therefore was submitted after the deadline. It also says there is no system that records final submission time and questions whether a user could alter the time displayed in a screenshot. Evidence and findings 6. The screenshots, exhibits 3-e1, 5-e1, and 7-e1, each describe the same portal activity: a supporting document was uploaded to application MW-2846 at 4:56 p.m. on April 14, 2026. They contain no message stating that the application was submitted. These exhibits support the limited finding that activity on the application occurred before 5:00 p.m. They do not establish that the completed application was submitted by then. The repeated presentation of the same screenshot does not add independent proof. 7. The agency’s statements identify a 5:12 p.m. processing-queue entry. The record describes that entry as a queue or processing time, not a final-submission timestamp. The agency also says its system does not record final submission time. Accordingly, the entry establishes that the application appeared in the queue at 5:12 p.m.; it does not, without more, establish when Elena submitted it. The agency’s assertion that the application was late is not itself proof of the underlying time. 8. The agency questions the screenshot’s reliability because screenshots can be altered. That is a relevant caution, but the record contains no specific evidence that this screenshot was altered. In any event, even if accepted as genuine, it proves only the upload time stated in it, not final submission. The tribunal therefore need not decide whether the displayed time is authentic to resolve the issue. 9. The parties’ submissions are arguments, not independent proof of the final submission time. Elena’s side expressly states that no independent record or proof of that time is available. The agency likewise says its system does not record it. The record thus leaves the actual submission time uncertain. Reasons 10. Rule 1 places the burden on the side seeking relief to support its request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Elena seeks withdrawal of the late-filing denial. Her evidence establishes pre-deadline activity, but not that the application was finally submitted before 5:00 p.m. Her candid acknowledgment of that limitation is appropriate, but it does not fill the evidentiary gap. 11. Rule 45 requires an agency decision to have support in the record. The agency’s 5:12 p.m. queue entry, standing alone, does not establish that the application was submitted after 5:00 p.m. The agency’s late-filing conclusion therefore is not independently demonstrated by that entry. But the weakness in the agency’s proof does not automatically establish Elena’s requested entitlement to relief. Under Rule 1, Elena still must point to evidence supporting withdrawal of the denial. The record proves neither timely nor late final submission. 12. The tribunal must resolve the uncertainty according to the assigned burden, not by treating either party’s assertion as fact. Because Elena bears the burden on her request and the available evidence does not establish timely final submission, the request to withdraw the late-filing denial is not proven. This conclusion does not affirmatively find that Elena filed late; it means only that she has not established a basis for the requested relief on this record. 13. No adjournment is appropriate. The hearing rules do not allow one, and both sides have indicated that the relevant final-submission time is unavailable from the system and that Elena has no independent proof. Repeating the request for unavailable proof would not cure the gap. The tribunal also makes no finding about whether Elena otherwise qualifies for a permit, because the application’s merits are not before it on this record. Final order 14. Elena Whitcomb’s request to withdraw the late-filing denial of application MW-2846 is denied because she has not established, on the available record, that the completed application was submitted by the 5:00 p.m. deadline. The Market Permit Review Office prevails on the requested relief. 15. This order does not find that the 5:12 p.m. queue entry was the submission time, and it does not affirmatively find that Elena submitted late. It resolves only that Elena has not met her burden to obtain withdrawal of the denial. No permit is awarded, no merits review is ordered, and no monetary award is made.