"Cognition" needs to be defined better. Do headaches count? Does slight anxiety? Short term or long term? A submariner, for example, is expected to adapt to and cope with a lot more than the general public.

This has been well-studied. A more pertinent question may be will we reach the threshold, keeping in mind that indoor air is nearly always higher in CO2 than outdoor air.

One would hope for a greater order of magnitude in difference than it actually is.

This market should resolve to yes. A systematic review and meta analysis has created consensus https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232300358X

One meta-review can still be wrong.

Technically yes. Anything can be wrong. A 20-year scientific consensus can turn out to be wrong with a new finding.

However for the purposes of the market you need to draw the line somewhere.

Isn't there already established enough scientific consensus? I'm sure there is a lot of medical papers on this topic

There are compelling papers from the navy that suggest up to 11,000 isn't a problem https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19863319

It's the 2012 Satish paper that suggests it matters

I'm surprised people are so confident this is true

Eg the footnote here makes me think we should have lower trust in Satish https://gwern.net/zeo/co2#fn1

Isn’t there consensus that it does?

What if high CO2 levels are an accurate proxy for some other cognition-damaging property of the air, but the CO2 levels in particular don't damage cognition

@NoaNabeshima That don't count, needs to actually be the CO2.

Would >2000 CO2 ppm count? or is this mostly about <2000 ppm?

@NoaNabeshima Resolves subjectively based on whether it seems like a realistic concern. >2000 levels are relatively common in buildings, so I'd say that counts.

Here are some more precise markets: