Market Trust diligence packet
Will the Bengals win the season series against the Steelers during the 2026-27 NFL regular season?
2 of 6 pillars measured, 2 modeled by fixed rules, 2 not assessed. Certainty reflects how much of this market we measured, not how good the market is.
One of four bands, strongest warning on the right
Some quality checks are missing complete source receipts, so the rating is held back until they fill in.
Use only as a review target. Current-card issues must clear before this price is used as evidence.
Market quality
40 / 100
Interval 0-50
Evidence confidence
low
38 / 100
Source health
source gate passed
1 sources | dropped 0
Audit chain
f9038948b9...
row hash verified
Memo language
Convexly rates this polymarket market "Will the Bengals win the season series against the Steelers during the 2026-27 NFL regular season?" as Do not cite. Use only as a review target. Current-card issues must clear before this price is used as evidence. Caveat to carry: Some measured pillars are missing complete source artifacts. This is market diligence, not a trading instruction or proof that the market probability is correct.
Caveat to carry: Some measured pillars are missing complete source artifacts.
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 the Bengals win the season series against the Steelers during the 2026-27 NFL regular season?" is rated Do not cite (market quality 40 / 100; Interval 0-50) as of 2026-08-09T14:30:22.532Z (UTC). Caveat to carry: Some measured pillars are missing complete source artifacts. Packet: https://www.convexly.app/market-trust/packet/polymarket/0x4ff1e1b52d12c425615c0d5c2ccb4d4951f5252ff1ac6a37139d6cae70d73474. Verdict row hash (SHA-256): f9038948b964598e9e46d261cb3822af25ff57c16fb9457956dab196d476de20. 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: Some measured pillars are missing complete source artifacts.
- Clear current blocker: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
- Clear current blocker: Some pillars on this card are still gathering evidence.
How the score adds upWhy this verdict
Why this rating
Composite 40 · Do not cite
Measurement certainty
Low
2 measured · 2 modeled · 2 not assessed
Certainty reflects how much of this market we measured, not how good the market is.
- CoherenceMeasuredlow readingweight 25.0
5 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 29 price-observation checkpoints recorded.
- · full provenance cme signal linked
- · signal price observations linked
- · no observed checkpoint yet
30+10.7 - 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 47.0c
- · spread: spread is 93% of mid, heavy slippage on size
- · spread: pp-band-to-cents-band approximation in effect (depth_5pct_usd/2 per side); per-side decomposition pending substrate work
10+2.9 - 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+20.0 - Participant flowNot assessednot yet measured for this marketweight 20.0
No participant flow rollup materialized yet.
- · participant flow pending
not assessednot assessed - Integrity risk screenNot assessednot yet measured for this marketweight 10.0
No participant concentration rollup materialized yet.
- · missing input
not assessednot assessed - Audit completenessMeasuredweight 5.0
3 linked artifacts; 1 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
- · artifact hash missing
- · source watermarks healthy
85+6.1
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 = 70.0.
Caveat: 2 pillars not assessed yet; the score will recompute as the substrate fills in.
Market identityWhat is being rated
Venue
polymarket
condition 0x4ff1e1b52d12c425...
Category
NFL
used for coverage and validation breadth
Market status
active
venue-provided lifecycle state when available
Resolution rule
This market will resolve according to the result of the season series between the Cincinnati Bengals and Pittsburgh Steelers during the 2026-27 NFL regular season. If the Cincinnati Bengals win the season series, this market will resolve to “Bengals”. If the Pittsburgh Steelers win the season series, this market will resolve to “Steelers”. If the Cincinnati Bengals and Pittsburgh Steelers tie the season series, this market will resolve to “tie”. If any scheduled game between the listed teams during the 2026-27 NFL regular season is cancelled, not completed, or otherwise does not produce an official result — including due to a shortened, truncated, or early-ended season — the season series will be determined solely using official results of completed games. If the season is cancelled, no games between the teams are completed, or the result of the season series cannot otherwise be confirmed by January 26, 2027, 11:59 PM ET, this market will resolve 50-50. The primary resolution source for this market will be information from the NFL, however a consensus of credible reporting will also be used.
Rules as stated by the venue, reproduced verbatim; not independently reviewed or endorsed by Convexly.
card_id: mt-v02:polymarket:0x4ff1e1b52d12c425615c0d5c2ccb4d4951f5252ff1ac6a37139d6cae70d73474:2026-08-09
market_id: abb6fd43-a400-411a-b9d6-6150b2b7652a
venue_market_id: 0x4ff1e1b52d12c425615c0d5c2ccb4d4951f5252ff1ac6a37139d6cae70d73474
resolution_source: 0x69c47De9D4D3Dad79590d61b9e05918E03775f24
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.
method: market_trust_card_v0_2
row_hash: f9038948b964598e9e46d261cb3822af25ff57c16fb9457956dab196d476de20
previous_row_hash: 7323d1c092918cf8b5d62139d6a3dd3389fd68a6707d87d3f8f7b105fe5760fe
source_artifact_hashes: 599eb25b1cc0fd0e4438401490a107e3e3f96b56e26d9d1f5fa86356ef7c729e, 2b5f1268f1ee952ee70b6f0c2016af27e74b660f7f36ad2600f14561a1ef63a0
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: 926114f5a164158b278966948a462db444bdc0c51bba1e082393518181290e28
How to verify this hash
- Fetch the canonical archive bytes: https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x4ff1e1b52d12c425615c0d5c2ccb4d4951f5252ff1ac6a37139d6cae70d73474/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical
- Recompute the digest locally, for example: curl -s "https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x4ff1e1b52d12c425615c0d5c2ccb4d4951f5252ff1ac6a37139d6cae70d73474/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical" | shasum -a 256
- Compare your digest to archive_sha256 in the JSON response at https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x4ff1e1b52d12c425615c0d5c2ccb4d4951f5252ff1ac6a37139d6cae70d73474/archive?venue=polymarket. Matching digests mean the archived verdict content is byte-for-byte unchanged.
- Cross-check card_row_hash against the stored full-card receipt at https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x4ff1e1b52d12c425615c0d5c2ccb4d4951f5252ff1ac6a37139d6cae70d73474/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; participant concentration measured over the whole record.
Market Fitness - pre-trade diligence (experimental)
4 of 6 diagnostics have a derivable observable on this stored card; 2 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 2026-08-09T14:30:15.738+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 (0x69c47De9D4D3Dad79590d61b9e05918E03775f24) 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
insufficient data
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
Missing input: Participant-flow concentration is not measured on this card (no scored participant rollup or no top-account flow share).
Caveats: 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
2026-08-09T14:30:15.738Z
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
612ms
oldest ingest watermark
Validation stateCanary vs v1
Canary pipeline
blocked
Current card has source, evidence, or robustness issues to clear.
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- Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
- Some pillars on this card are still gathering evidence.
- The rating moves under leave-one-out or weight-perturbation checks.
- 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: Some measured pillars are missing complete source artifacts.
- Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
- Current card issue: Some pillars on this card are still gathering evidence.
- Current card issue: The rating moves under leave-one-out or weight-perturbation checks.
- artifact hash missing
- depth:bid $0 / ask $0
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
External sports baselines are identified for review but are not part of the Market Trust score.
Sportsbook consensus line
not integrated
Roster / availability feed
not integrated
Historical base-rate benchmark
not integrated
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
5 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 29 price-observation checkpoints recorded.
Executability
weight 20 · heuristic
10 / 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.
Resolution reliability
weight 20 · heuristic
70 / 100
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
Participant flow
weight 20 · pending
pending
No participant flow rollup materialized yet.
Integrity risk screen
weight 10 · pending
pending
No participant concentration rollup materialized yet.
Audit completeness
weight 5 · measured
85 / 100
3 linked artifacts; 1 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
Coherence blockLinked-market consistency
5 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 29 price-observation checkpoints recorded.
Score
30
measured evidence
Source refs
5
linked-market or CME artifacts
full provenance cme signal linked signal price observations linked no observed checkpoint yet
Robustness blockSensitivity and drivers
Sensitivity verdict
moves
leave-one-out and weight perturbation
Leave-one-out
28-52
score range
Weight perturbation
38-41
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.
- Participant flow is pending, not fully measured.
- Integrity screen is pending, not fully measured.
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.