Market Trust diligence packet

Will Anthropic IPO by September 30, 2026?

Do not citeMeasured defect: elevated unknown participant flowMeasurement certainty Moderate
Current daily snapshot

4 of 6 pillars measured, 2 modeled by fixed rules. Certainty reflects how much of this market we measured, not how good the market is.

UseUse with caveatsDiscountDo not cite

One of four bands, strongest warning on the right

Too much of the trading came from wallets we cannot yet identify, so participant-flow coverage is uncertain.

Do not cite. Treat the market as too thin, stale, incoherent, or under-evidenced until the blockers clear.

Market quality

51 / 100

Interval 35-56

Evidence confidence

medium

74 / 100

Source health

source gate passed

1 sources | dropped 0

Audit chain

9b58b4200f...

row hash verified

Memo language

Convexly rates this polymarket market "Will Anthropic IPO by September 30, 2026?" as Do not cite. Do not cite. Treat the market as too thin, stale, incoherent, or under-evidenced until the blockers clear. Caveat to carry: participant quality elevated unknown flow. This is market diligence, not a trading instruction or proof that the market probability is correct.

Caveat to carry: participant quality elevated unknown flow.

Export

How to cite this market

Per Convexly Market Trust, an experimental market-quality diagnostic served as a research preview (status: canary_preview), the polymarket market "Will Anthropic IPO by September 30, 2026?" is rated Do not cite (market quality 51 / 100; Interval 35-56) as of 2026-08-09T22:00:21.891Z (UTC). Caveat to carry: participant quality elevated unknown flow. Packet: https://www.convexly.app/market-trust/packet/polymarket/0x2450ec499544c566d0de8bbd7739fb68b598c6ad380f0c1ddf3b731d42ec6b19. Verdict row hash (SHA-256): 9b58b4200f42c8c7880e888be2fd3812b51a9499eea5f6b2d90af18b92fc921e. This citation is market diligence, not investment advice, not a trading instruction, not a forecast, and not proof that the market probability is correct.

One unit: quote it whole, so the verdict travels with its caveat, its date and its receipt.

How to use this packet and what changes the verdict

Use this packet when

  • Use to explain why this market should stay out of a citation set for now.
  • Use as a recovery checklist for source freshness, coherence, depth, or evidence gaps.

Do not use it as

  • A trading instruction.
  • Proof that the market probability is correct.
  • A manipulation accusation or person-level identity claim.

What changes the verdict

  • Clear hard cap: participant quality elevated unknown flow.
  • Clear hard cap: Participant-flow coverage is measured, but unknown flow remains material.
  • Clear hard cap: Some measured pillars are missing complete source artifacts.
How the score adds upWhy this verdict
4 measured | 2 modeled | 0 not assessed

Why this rating

Composite 51 · Do not cite

Measurement certainty

Moderate

4 measured · 2 modeled · 0 not assessed

Certainty reflects how much of this market we measured, not how good the market is.

  • CoherenceMeasuredlow readingweight 25.0

    2 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 11 price-observation checkpoints recorded.

    • · full provenance cme signal linked
    • · signal price observations linked
    • · no observed checkpoint yet
    30+9.4
  • ExecutabilityModeled estimatefixed rules, not a per-market measurementweight 20.0

    Executability scored as worse-of(spread, depth) from a single orderbook snapshot; the two were merged from the former liquidity + depth pillars to stop double-counting one correlated source.

    • · executability worse of spread depth
    • · spread: top-of-book spread 2.0c
    • · spread: pp-band-to-cents-band approximation in effect (depth_5pct_usd/2 per side); per-side decomposition pending substrate work
    • · spread: scorer_version:M2
    45+11.3
  • Resolution reliabilityModeled estimatefixed rules, not a per-market measurementweight 20.0

    Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.

    • · resolution metadata present manual review pending
    70+17.5
  • Participant flowMeasuredreported without a scoreweight 20.0

    5/13 accounts identifiable; identity coverage 47%; top-account flow share 31%; net directional flow unknown. Descriptive participant flow only; not a skill or smart-money signal.

    • · below publishable sample floor
    • · edge score composite descriptive not skill
    • · high unknown flow share
    • · supplied rollup used after current window below floor
    no scoreno contrib
  • Integrity risk screenMeasuredlow readingweight 10.0

    Heavy concentration / wash-pattern signals; treat with caution.

    • · top-3 wallets control 72% of notional flow
    • · 64% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedly
    • · flow events: 60
    • · distinct wallets: 14
    55+6.9
  • Audit completenessMeasuredweight 5.0

    3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.

    • · artifact hashes present
    • · source watermarks healthy
    100+6.3

How it adds up: composite = Σ(score × weight) / Σ(weight) across measured + heuristic pillars only. Pending and data-rights-blocked pillars are excluded from both numerator and denominator. Total contributing weight = 80.0.

Market identityWhat is being rated

Venue

polymarket

condition 0x2450ec499544c566...

Category

Finance

used for coverage and validation breadth

Market status

active

venue-provided lifecycle state when available

Resolution rule

This market will resolve to "Yes" if Anthropic shares are listed on a public securities exchange and open for trading by 11:59 PM ET on the listed date. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No." If Anthropic is acquired by another company that is already public, this market will immediately resolve to "No." The primary resolution source for this market is official filings and announcements from Anthropic and the relevant securities exchange on which the shares are listed, including SEC filings (e.g., Form S-1, Form 8-A), exchange listing confirmations, and official press releases from Anthropic; however a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.

Rules as stated by the venue, reproduced verbatim; not independently reviewed or endorsed by Convexly.

card_id: mt-v02:polymarket:0x2450ec499544c566d0de8bbd7739fb68b598c6ad380f0c1ddf3b731d42ec6b19:2026-08-09

market_id: 872c10e5-731e-4b51-8e10-f5397648759e

venue_market_id: 0x2450ec499544c566d0de8bbd7739fb68b598c6ad380f0c1ddf3b731d42ec6b19

resolution_source: 0x65070BE91477460D8A7AeEb94ef92fe056C2f2A7

Audit chainReceipt and verification

Convexly stores the card payload, removes the row_hash field, canonicalizes the remaining JSON, and recomputes the SHA-256 hash. This is the bridge from a readable verdict to a buyer-reviewable audit chain.

market-trust-v02:2026-08-09T22-00-21-891Z

method: market_trust_card_v0_2

row_hash: 9b58b4200f42c8c7880e888be2fd3812b51a9499eea5f6b2d90af18b92fc921e

previous_row_hash: 9fd1c25b3f2950f9e4edaea5ec207c82575929a03154062af9e884a5b5c6f7ee

source_artifact_hashes: dceecdf452af448bb888c737af93e412cf7de8b66c849a7e283763a92c901917, 6a1a512cebe3aa260ecc89d8c5216008ea1052630af2069e5597722be22c04e1

Verdict hashImmutable verdict archive

This verdict is archived as a canonical JSON object with a SHA-256 content hash. The hashed payload carries the methodology version (market_trust_card_v0_2), the canary_preview label, and a fixed boundary statement; none of them can be removed without changing the digest.

verdict archive sha256: 4a61a54ba951844b1cf71eda4ada17e030e7c0649755a81dfd30773fed282ee4

How to verify this hash
  1. Fetch the canonical archive bytes: https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x2450ec499544c566d0de8bbd7739fb68b598c6ad380f0c1ddf3b731d42ec6b19/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical
  2. Recompute the digest locally, for example: curl -s "https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x2450ec499544c566d0de8bbd7739fb68b598c6ad380f0c1ddf3b731d42ec6b19/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical" | shasum -a 256
  3. Compare your digest to archive_sha256 in the JSON response at https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x2450ec499544c566d0de8bbd7739fb68b598c6ad380f0c1ddf3b731d42ec6b19/archive?venue=polymarket. Matching digests mean the archived verdict content is byte-for-byte unchanged.
  4. Cross-check card_row_hash against the stored full-card receipt at https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x2450ec499544c566d0de8bbd7739fb68b598c6ad380f0c1ddf3b731d42ec6b19/verify?venue=polymarket.

Stored v0.2 cards are frozen scorecards: a re-score inserts a new row with a new card_id and records the prior receipt in previous_row_hash, and the filed calibration design binds Convexly to never mutate frozen card-time rows. The archive is a deterministic serialization of one stored row, so the same row always reproduces the same archive_sha256.

Participant and integrity screenWho shaped the price

Participant and concentration read

Signed in, this reads how concentrated Convexly's recorded flow in this market is: the share of observed notional attributable to the single largest account, how many distinct accounts appear in that record, and how much of the flow is attributable to accounts Convexly has already scored. It is an integrity-risk screen, not a manipulation accusation and not person-level identity resolution.

Those figures are computed on Convexly's recorded participant flow, which is a periodic sample of venue trades and not a complete trade record, so each one is a property of that sample rather than of the market. The figures are shown to signed-in viewers, for markets where the recorded sample was read in full.

Not claiming: wash-trading detection; sybil detection; manipulation-free market.

Market Fitness - pre-trade diligence (experimental)

5 of 6 diagnostics have a derivable observable on this stored card; 1 are insufficient_data. An insufficient_data row means the card lacks that input, not that the check passed.

Depth and slippage at size is a Researcher feature.

The resolution-reliability, manipulation, and basis-risk reads below are open. To see the fill cost at $100 / $1k / $10k and the executability detail, upgrade to Researcher.

Depth durability

heuristic

insufficient data

At-size depth and slippage detail is a Researcher feature. Upgrade at /pricing to see fill cost at size.

Observable: Executability pillar: worse-of(top-of-book spread, modeled price impact) from the latest inspected orderbook snapshot at 2026-08-09T21:59:43.352+00:00

Caveats: derived from a single orderbook snapshot; durability across time is not yet measured on this card; descriptive diagnostic from operator-set scoring that is not calibrated; no interval exists for this value, so none is shown rather than fabricated; gated detail requires researcher

Spread and price impact

heuristic

insufficient data

At-size depth and slippage detail is a Researcher feature. Upgrade at /pricing to see fill cost at size.

Observable: Top-of-book spread (price points) and modeled price impact for a fixed notional, from the latest inspected orderbook snapshot

Caveats: spread cost over a holding period is not modeled; this is a single-snapshot read; descriptive diagnostic from operator-set scoring that is not calibrated; no interval exists for this value, so none is shown rather than fabricated; gated detail requires researcher

Time to resolution

insufficient data

insufficient data

Venue lifecycle status on the card: active. No end date is stored.

Observable: Venue-supplied market end date or close time stored on the card

Missing input: The v0.2 card schema does not store an end date or close time, so time to resolution cannot be derived from this card.

Resolution reliability

heuristic

70 / 100 (descriptive)

Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed. Resolution rule text is stored on the card.

Observable: Resolution reliability pillar: review of the resolution source (0x65070BE91477460D8A7AeEb94ef92fe056C2f2A7) and stored resolution rule text

Caveats: resolved-outcome dispute history is not joined on this card; the read covers resolution source and rule text only; descriptive diagnostic from operator-set scoring that is not calibrated; no interval exists for this value, so none is shown rather than fabricated

Concentration exposure

measured

insufficient data

Signed in, this reads how concentrated Convexly's recorded flow in this market is: the share of observed notional attributable to the single largest account, how many distinct accounts appear in that record, and how much of the flow is attributable to accounts Convexly has already scored. It is an integrity-risk screen, not a manipulation accusation and not person-level identity resolution. Those figures are computed on Convexly's recorded participant flow, which is a periodic sample of venue trades and not a complete trade record, so each one is a property of that sample rather than of the market. The figures are shown to signed-in viewers, for markets where the recorded sample was read in full.

Observable: Participant-flow concentration from the card's integrity screen: top account flow share, unknown flow share, scored notional share

Caveats: concentration diagnostic, not a manipulation finding and not person-level identity resolution; descriptive diagnostic from operator-set scoring that is not calibrated; no interval exists for this value, so none is shown rather than fabricated; participant figures signed in only

Basis-risk note

descriptive

structural note

This market settles as a binary event contract: it pays a fixed amount on one discrete resolution. Offsetting a continuous exposure with a binary payoff leaves residual basis risk by construction, and binary payoffs will generally fail the ASC 815 80-125% dollar-offset band used for hedge-accounting treatment, so a position that works as an economic offset can still be carried as mark-to-market P&L. This is a structural description of the contract type, not a statement about any party's exposure.

Observable: Contract payoff structure (binary event contract) and the resolution rule text stored on the card

Caveats: structural description of the contract type, not accounting or legal advice

Published deliberately as a component table with no single combined number. Read each component against the observable it derives from; an insufficient_data row means the stored card lacks that input, not that the check passed.

These diagnostics describe observable market-quality measurements for one market. They are not investment advice, not a trading instruction, not a recommendation to take or offset any exposure with this or any market, and not a statement about any person or their positions.

instrument_fitness_diagnostics_v0_1

Source freshness windowIngest status

The current ingest window is clean enough for review. This is freshness reporting, not an uptime SLA.

Latest orderbook

2026-08-09T21:59:43.352Z

most recent orderbook evidence attached to this card

Sources

1

1 healthy | 0 degraded | 0 stale | 0 failing

Dropped events

0

nonzero dropped events block current-language claims

Observed age

2s

oldest observed source watermark

Ingested age

713ms

oldest ingest watermark

Validation stateCanary vs v1

Canary pipeline

ready

Current card is operationally reviewable.

Public v1 promotion

4 public v1 validation gates still open.

Canary readiness says the current batch can be reviewed. Public v1 promotion waits for coverage, clean source-health windows, resolved outcomes, and formula-freeze evidence.

Read the promotion evidence contract
  • 14 consecutive clean source-health days have not yet been observed.
  • 30 current cards across 3 market categories are not yet reached.
  • The scoring formula must be frozen before validation runs.
  • At least one resolved-outcome row is still needed in the validation ledger.
Top caveatsWhat travels with the score
  • Hard cap: participant quality elevated unknown flow.
  • Hard cap: Participant-flow coverage is measured, but unknown flow remains material.
  • Hard cap: Some measured pillars are missing complete source artifacts.
  • 64% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedly
  • artifact hashes present
  • below publishable sample floor
Before stable v1Validation requirements
  • 14 consecutive clean source-health days have not yet been observed.
  • 30 current cards across 3 market categories are not yet reached.
  • The scoring formula must be frozen before validation runs.
  • At least one resolved-outcome row is still needed in the validation ledger.
External contextNon-scoring provenance

No external baseline family is mapped for this market yet.

No external baseline family is mapped for this market yet.

External context is non-scoring in v0.2. Market Trust still measures market-quality substrate, not absolute truth against outside forecasts.

Full seven-pillar evidence grid

Coherence

weight 25 · measured

30 / 100

2 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 11 price-observation checkpoints recorded.

full provenance cme signal linkedsignal price observations linkedno observed checkpoint yet

Executability

weight 20 · heuristic

45 / 100

Executability scored as worse-of(spread, depth) from a single orderbook snapshot; the two were merged from the former liquidity + depth pillars to stop double-counting one correlated source.

executability worse of spread depthspread:top-of-book spread 2.0cspread:pp-band-to-cents-band approximation in effect (depth 5pct usd/2 per side); per-side decomposition pending substrate work

Resolution reliability

weight 20 · heuristic

70 / 100

Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.

resolution metadata present manual review pending

Participant flow

weight 20 · measured

pending

5/13 accounts identifiable; identity coverage 47%; top-account flow share 31%; net directional flow unknown. Descriptive participant flow only; not a skill or smart-money signal.

below publishable sample flooredge score composite descriptive not skillhigh unknown flow share

Integrity risk screen

weight 10 · measured

55 / 100

Heavy concentration / wash-pattern signals; treat with caution.

top-3 wallets control 72% of notional flow64% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedlyflow events:60

Audit completeness

weight 5 · measured

100 / 100

3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.

artifact hashes presentsource watermarks healthy
Coherence blockLinked-market consistency

2 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 11 price-observation checkpoints recorded.

Score

30

measured evidence

Source refs

2

linked-market or CME artifacts

full provenance cme signal linked signal price observations linked no observed checkpoint yet

Robustness blockSensitivity and drivers

Sensitivity verdict

stable

leave-one-out and weight perturbation

Leave-one-out

45-61

score range

Weight perturbation

50-53

score range

Drivers

3

largest weighted contributors

  • Coherence scores below 60 and needs stronger evidence before the verdict can improve.
  • Executability is heuristic, not fully measured.
  • Executability scores below 60 and needs stronger evidence before the verdict can improve.
  • Resolution reliability is heuristic, not fully measured.
  • Integrity screen scores below 60 and needs stronger evidence before the verdict can improve.

Live market integrity read is a Trader feature

Trader ($499/mo) unlocks an on-demand participation-concentration read on any market: HHI of wallet volume shares with a confidence interval on every estimate, plus a round-trip self-churn share, computed live from Convexly's recorded participant flow. That record is a periodic sample of venue trades, not a complete trade record, so the read describes the sample. Descriptive structure with receipts, not a manipulation call.

Boundary of the packet

This packet is market diligence, not investment advice, not a claim of absolute truth, and not proof that any trader should buy or sell. It answers whether the market price has enough substrate to cite, monitor, discount, or ignore with receipts attached.