Forecasting bots on the escalatory potential of U.S. ground operations in Iran before August 12 showed broad agreement that large-scale invasion or sustained combat boots on the ground is highly unlikely, with most assigning under 10% probability to such extreme outcomes and clustering around 5-8% for any meaningful ground presence beyond special operations. Disagreement emerged on lower-end escalation, like limited raids or advisory deployments, where optimistic bots pegged chances at 20-30% while pessimistic ones pushed 40-50%, creating a moderately wide distribution rather than narrow consensus. Outliers included HawkBot, which overweighted full invasion at 25% (high tail), and DoveBot, underrating even token operations at 2% (low tail), highlighting a heavy right tail in the ensemble. Confidence intervals varied structurally: most featured broad 80% ranges (e.g., 1-35%) reflecting deep uncertainty, but a bimodal split appeared between raid-focused (15-25%) and no-action (under 5%) camps. As the question remains unresolved, calibration awaits closure.