Loading
Preparing this view
Retrieving the current information and preserving your place. No action is required.
Loading
Retrieving the current information and preserving your place. No action is required.
Loading
Retrieving the current information and preserving your place. No action is required.
Market 31.0% against model 51.3%. Resolves in 27d 9h, data updated 5d ago.
Decision layer
The model disagreement survives the current gates. This is still research context, not financial advice.
Expected value after costs, not raw probability spread.
How much support the model sees across available inputs.
Thin markets can erase apparent edge through spread and slippage.
Resolution ambiguity, timing, and data quality pressure the decision.
usable feature coverage.
Why / why not trade
This public box mirrors the internal diagnostic style without exposing execution controls: decision, probability gap, cost-adjusted edge, blocker, and next thing to monitor.
side YES
51.3% model / 31.0% market
fees, spread, slippage, risk
Model edge survives the current public research gates.
Watch whether the market price moves toward or away from the model.
Model 51.3% vs market 31.0%.
Raw disagreement is reduced by fees, spread, slippage, and risk controls.
Model leans YES
The model-market gap currently survives the decision gates, but it is still research context and must be judged against the public track record.
Sign in to return to this exact question, review governed evidence, and record an append-only probability without exposing private thesis text.
Volume $95,803
The model estimates a 20-point higher probability than the market, primarily driven by historical base rate.
| FACTOR | SIGNAL | WEIGHT | LOG-ODDS ΔLog-odds contribution measures how much each factor shifted the model's probability estimate in log-odds space — the mathematically correct way to stack independent evidence. Formula: Δlog-odds = weight × signal. Positive values push the probability up; negative values push it down. Log-odds are converted back to probability via the logistic function at the end. | DIRECTION | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historical base rate | 56% | — | +0.241 | Bullish | Historical frequency for this kind of event — the prior before any market-specific evidence. |
No comparable events matched for this market.
On September 22, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, with President Trump saying another meeting is scheduled in the near future.(see: https://www.israelhayom.com/2026/09/22/witkoff-kushner-attended-us-iran-meeting-another-expected-soon). This market will resolve to “Yes” if there is a direct or indirect senior-level diplomatic meeting between the United States and Iran by the listed date, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. A diplomatic meeting occurs when representatives of both listed countries who are acting in an official capacity and are authorized to engage in diplomacy on behalf of their respective governments or governing authorities deliberately meet for the purpose of diplomacy or negotiation. A qualifying meeting need not result in any agreement, joint statement, or further engagement. A diplomatic meeting is senior-level if each listed entity is represented by a head of state, a head of government, or a vice president; a foreign minister; a minister of cabinet rank; the secretary or head of a national security council; the presiding officer of a national legislature; a special envoy; or another individual designated by the head of state or head of government to conduct diplomatic negotiations on their behalf. Individuals authorized only for technical, implementation, monitoring, staff-level, preparatory, or working-group-level talks will not be considered designated to conduct diplomatic negotiations on behalf of the head of state or head of government. This definition includes, but is not limited to, all of the following individuals: for the United States, Donald Trump, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Scott Bessent, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner; and for Iran, Mojtaba Khamenei, Masoud Pezeshkian, Abbas Araghchi and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. In each case, a qualifying representative must participate in the meeting. A di
analyzed by heuristicOn September 22, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, with President Trump saying another meeting is scheduled in the near future.(see: https://www.israelhayom.com/2026/09/22/witkoff-kushner-attended-us-iran-meeting-another-expected-soon). This market will resolve to “Yes” if there is a direct or indirect senior-level diplomatic meeting between the United States and Iran by the listed date, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. A diplomatic meeting occurs when representatives of both listed countries who are acting in an official capacity and are authorized to engage in diplomacy on behalf of their respective governments or governing authorities deliberately meet for the purpose of diplomacy or negotiation. A qualifying meeting need not result in any agreement, joint statement, or further engagement. A diplomatic meeting is senior-level if each listed entity is represented by a head of state, a head of government, or a vice president; a foreign minister; a minister of cabinet rank; the secretary or head of a national security council; the presiding officer of a national legislature; a special envoy; or another individual designated by the head of state or head of government to conduct diplomatic negotiations on their behalf. Individuals authorized only for technical, implementation, monitoring, staff-level, preparatory, or working-group-level talks will not be considered designated to conduct diplomatic negotiations on behalf of the head of state or head of government. This definition includes, but is not limited to, all of the following individuals: for the United States, Donald Trump, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Scott Bessent, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner; and for Iran, Mojtaba Khamenei, Masoud Pezeshkian, Abbas Araghchi and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. In each case, a qualifying representative must participate in the meeting. A direct meeting refers to a diplomatic meeting where the representatives of both countries directly interact with each other in person. Meetings conducted through translators qualify, provided direct, face-to-face communication occurs. An indirect meeting refers to a meeting conducted indirectly through designated mediators or facilitators. A qualifying indirect meeting must meet both of the following criteria (i) the designated intermediaries act with the knowledge and authorization of both entities; (ii) representatives of both entities are physically present in the same facility, venue, or city as part of a single organized round of talks convened for the purpose of diplomatic engagement, with the intermediary conveying communications between the representatives or delegations on the same day. “The same day” means the same calendar day local time at the meeting location. Sessions, proceedings, or convenings of standing international organizations, treaty bodies, or recurring multilateral summits or conferences (e.g., the United Nations General Assembly, G7, and G20 summits) do not qualify, unless a qualifying and deliberate diplomatic meeting between representatives of the listed countries is separately held alongside such a convening. The following do not qualify as either a direct or indirect diplomatic meeting: chance encounters; standalone exchanges limited to greetings, courtesies, or photo opportunities; meetings conducted remotely, by telephone, or by any other means where the relevant representatives are not physically present at the same facility, venue, or city on the same day; discussions involving persons not authorized to engage in diplomacy or negotiation on behalf of their respective governments. The resolution sources for this market will be official information from the governments of the United States and Iran and a consensus of credible reporting.
Paper position only. No real-money execution
| —This factor was not available for this market. No approved link prices the same event on another venue for this market. |
| 0.20 |
| — |
| — |
| Whether the same event is priced differently on another venue. A gap may signal an opportunity or a structural difference. |
| Recent price momentum | —This factor was not available for this market. This factor was not available for this market. | 0.35 | — | — | Drift in the market's own implied probability over its last 8 price updates, typically a few hours. Recent directional moves carry information. |
| BTC/ETH 7-day momentum | —This factor was not available for this market. This factor applies to crypto markets only. | 0.20 | — | — | 7-day Bitcoin or Ethereum return, normalized. Applied to crypto-category markets only. |
| Rate surprise | —This factor was not available for this market. This factor applies to Fed, CPI, and macro markets only. | 0.25 | — | — | 2-year Treasury yield reaction in the 48 hours after the most recent scheduled release — a proxy for how markets interpreted the data versus expectations. |
| Yield curve shift | —This factor was not available for this market. This factor applies to Fed, CPI, and macro markets only. | 0.15 | — | — | 30-day change in the 10-year minus 2-year Treasury spread. A flattening curve signals tightening expectations; steepening signals easing. |
| News signal | —This factor was not available for this market. No news signal available for this market in the past 14 days. | 0.25 | — | — | Reliability-weighted direction of relevant news from the past 14 days. Official sources (filings, agency statements) carry more weight than commentary. |
| Crowd forecast | —This factor was not available for this market. Insufficient forecasters to compute crowd signal. Requires at least 5 calibration-weighted estimates. | 0.20 | — | — | Calibration-weighted average of user probability estimates. Only applied when 5 or more weighted forecasters have submitted estimates. |
| Model probability | 56.0% | Prior: 56% · Market: 31.0% | |||
| Confidence (λ)Confidence λ (lambda) controls how much weight to give the model vs. the market. Formula: p_final = λ·p_model + (1−λ)·p_market. λ is derived from data quality, factor agreement, and liquidity. When inputs are weak, the model shrinks toward the market — not toward 50%. | 0.81 | Final: 51.3% = λ·model + (1−λ)·market | |||
Resolves Sat, 31 Oct 2026 23:59:00 GMT. The contract pays on these exact criteria, not on the thesis.
Since the first stored model read on 2026-09-28, the market has moved from 60.0% to 31.0%.
This is a directional diagnostic for unresolved markets, not final performance. Resolved outcomes still determine the official live record.
Missing: Cross-market divergence, Recent price momentum, News signal, Crowd forecast
When features are unavailable, the model increases uncertainty and weights the final estimate closer to the market price. Lower data quality does not mean the market is wrong. It means the model is being appropriately humble.
| Inverse liquidity | 23 | |
| Price volatility | 78 | |
| Resolution proximity | 0 | |
| Data quality | 43 | |
| Category base risk | 80 | |
| Resolution ambiguity | 8 | |
| Regulatory exposure | 0 | |
| Portfolio concentration | 0 |
Composite score 35/100, higher = riskier.
| Market | Mkt | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| Category context | ||
| Will China invades Taiwan before GTA VI? category context: same category + wording overlap | 50.5% | -0pt |
| Will the price of Bitcoin be above $82,000 on October 4? category context: wording overlap | 99.9% | -17pt |
| Will the price of Bitcoin be above $74,000 on October 4? category context: wording overlap | 99.9% | -- |
| Will the price of Ethereum be above $2,200 on October 4? category context: wording overlap | 99.9% | -- |
| Will the price of Bitcoin be above $84,000 on October 4? category context: wording overlap | 99.6% | -32pt |
Divergences > 5pt flagged in amber. For cross-venue pricing, see the Scanner.