Loading
Preparing this view
Retrieving the current information and preserving your place. No action is required.
Loading current information
Forecast AlphaForecast AlphaLoading
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 55.5% against model 54.5%. Resolves in 40d 2h, data updated 11d ago.
The model can still be informative here, but one or more gates blocks a trade call.
Decision layer
The model may still be informative, but at least one gate blocks an action-style signal.
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.
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.
no side selected
54.5% model / 55.5% market
fees, spread, slippage, risk
No edge after fees and slippage — the market price is fair within costs.
No edge after fees and slippage — the market price is fair within costs.
Model 54.5% vs market 55.5%.
Raw disagreement is reduced by fees, spread, slippage, and risk controls.
No trade
The model may disagree with price, but the gates say the disagreement is not actionable right now.
Sign in to return to this exact question, review governed evidence, and record an append-only probability without exposing private thesis text.
usable feature coverage.
Volume $26,283
Declining to trade is a feature: most markets are priced fairly within costs, and the risk gates run before any edge is considered.
The model estimates a 1-point lower 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 | 54% | — | +0.168 | Bullish | Historical frequency for this kind of event — the prior before any market-specific evidence. |
| Cross-market divergence | —This factor was not available for this market. No approved cross-venue link exists 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. |
| 7-day price momentum | —This factor was not available for this market. This factor was not available for this market. |
No comparable events matched for this market.
The next Osnabrück mayoral election is scheduled to be held on September 13, 2026, to elect the mayor of Osnabrück, Germany (Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Osnabrück). A runoff election is scheduled for September 27, 2026, if no candidate receives more than half of the valid votes in the first round. This market will resolve according to the candidate who becomes the next mayor of Osnabrück as a result of this election. Temporary, interim, or placeholder mayors appointed before the election will not be considered. If the result of this election isn't known by April 30, 2027, 11:59 PM ET, the market will resolve to “Other.” The primary resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible reporting; however, if there is any ambiguity in the results, this market will resolve according to official information from the Stadt Osnabrück, including its election office and municipal election committee.
ambiguity 40/100analyzed by heuristicThe next Osnabrück mayoral election is scheduled to be held on September 13, 2026, to elect the mayor of Osnabrück, Germany (Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Osnabrück). A runoff election is scheduled for September 27, 2026, if no candidate receives more than half of the valid votes in the first round. This market will resolve according to the candidate who becomes the next mayor of Osnabrück as a result of this election. Temporary, interim, or placeholder mayors appointed before the election will not be considered. If the result of this election isn't known by April 30, 2027, 11:59 PM ET, the market will resolve to “Other.” The primary resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible reporting; however, if there is any ambiguity in the results, this market will resolve according to official information from the Stadt Osnabrück, including its election office and municipal election committee.
- Undefined edge case The criteria themselves acknowledge unresolved edge cases.
- Oracle dependency Resolution depends on a single named source continuing to publish the metric.
Resolves Sun, 13 Sep 2026 23:59:00 GMT. The contract pays on these exact criteria, not on the thesis.
The engine sizes NO TRADE markets to zero. Sizing never overrides the risk gates.
Paper position only. No real-money execution
| 0.35 |
| — |
| — |
| 7-day drift in the market's own implied probability. Sustained 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 | 54.2% | Prior: 54% · Market: 55.5% | |||
| 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%. | 0.78 | Final: 54.5% = λ·model + (1−λ)·market | |||
Since the first stored model read on 2026-08-01, the market has moved from 57.0% to 55.5%.
This is a directional diagnostic for unresolved markets, not final performance. Resolved outcomes still determine the official live record.
Missing: Cross-market divergence, 7-day 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 | 32 | |
| Price volatility | 5 | |
| Resolution proximity | 0 | |
| Data quality | 32 | |
| Category base risk | 55 | |
| Resolution ambiguity | 40 | |
| Regulatory exposure | 0 | |
| Portfolio concentration | 0 |
Composite score 25/100, higher = riskier.