I had a similar thought the problem with the "unknown" outcome i think this is heuristically similar to the problem of disproving a negative claim. Russell's teapot claims there is a teapot between earth and mars.
So based on this train of reasoning I can see it resolving to either yes or no:
1) It only resolves to yes if there is evidence, so between now and the resolution date it would have to be proven that Craig-Wright is satoshi/or used the name...this would probably require something like validation and use of his bitcoin forum login, a private key that isn't backdated or maybe someone like Nick Sazbo coming out and saying he is. (it would be all over reddit at this point and a myriad of other tech cites)
2) As currently all the pieces of "evidence" listed in the three sources provided in the market have been proven faulty or faked it seems that there no longer exists any evidence for a link at all.
These along with a half dozen posts on reddit basically ripped all the evidence to shreds and actually gave proof that some of the "evidence" was manufactured after the fact. This points to a clear intention to create a hoax...the most damming of which, are in my opinion, the public keys created with an encryption that did not exist at the time those keys are dated.
Basically as there is now no evidence that links Craig-Wright to Satoshi so in my mind it actually resolves to "no" not to "unknown." For example I could create a key at this point and claim I used the pseudonym in 2009 but that would not resolve to unknown it would resolve to no as well.
So basically as I see it as right now there is no evidence for yes it actually resolves to no, unless between now and resolution date new evidence emerges.
It could also resolve to unknown still but that would, i think, require a new piece of evidence to emerge. However, since the existence of evidence that was manufactured points to a hoax, this is actually evidence for no.
It could also resolve to unknown if between now and resolution it was somehow shown that the fake evidence was created by a 3rd party for some other reason and not by Craig Wright himself. For example, he actually did use the pseudonym and someone else manufactured the evidence to force out him as Satoshi; this would create some believe that someone wanted to out him implying he may be Satoshi. However, no such evidence as this exists as of today.
Just my 2 cents; and this is more fun than writing my thesis Hit me back with your thoughts!