Market Trust diligence packet

US ceasefire against Iran continues through August 22?

Do not citeUnder-measured: 1 of 6 pillarsMeasurement certainty Low
Current daily snapshot

1 of 6 pillars measured, 2 modeled by fixed rules, 3 not assessed. 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

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

63 / 100

Interval 20-76

Evidence confidence

insufficient

29 / 100

Source health

source gate passed

1 sources | dropped 0

Audit chain

1a093c3232...

row hash verified

Memo language

Convexly rates this polymarket market "US ceasefire against Iran continues through August 22?" as Do not cite.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.

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 "US ceasefire against Iran continues through August 22?" is rated Do not cite (market quality 63 / 100; Interval 20-76) as of 2026-08-24T21:31:36.484Z (UTC). Caveat to carry: Some measured pillars are missing complete source artifacts. Packet: https://www.convexly.app/market-trust/packet/polymarket/0x72ae00a9c819522724484336c65afddffbd3a96596595530178493e25d6c39d6. Verdict row hash (SHA-256): 1a093c32325c4afc51c6b38d0c0744eed531c41985d20b03f7a6864eae1654bf. 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
1 measured | 2 modeled | 3 not assessed

Why this rating

Composite 63 · Do not cite

Measurement certainty

Low

1 measured · 2 modeled · 3 not assessed

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

  • CoherenceModeled estimatefixed rules, not a per-market measurementweight 25.0

    No full-provenance CME signal is linked to this condition in the current ledger window; absence of a signal is not proof of coherence.

    • · no linked cme signal in window
    • · absence of signal not proof of coherence
    • · cme signal window days: 7
    • · recent full provenance signals: 23
    50+25.0
  • ExecutabilityNot assessednot yet measured for this marketweight 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: one_sided_orderbook_boundary
    • · spread: direct_bid_ask_spread_missing
    • · spread: visible $1k ladder slippage 0pp
    65not assessed
  • 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+28.0
  • 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+8.5

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 = 50.0.

Caveat: 3 pillars not assessed yet; the score will recompute as the substrate fills in.

Market identityWhat is being rated

Venue

polymarket

condition 0x72ae00a9c8195227...

Category

Iran

used for coverage and validation breadth

Market status

active

venue-provided lifecycle state when available

Resolution rule

This market will resolve to “No” if the United States takes a qualifying military action against Iran by the specified date, 11:59 PM Iran Standard Time. Otherwise this market will resolve to “Yes.” A qualifying military action refers to an air strike or a surface-to-surface missile strike, initiated by the United States, that directly impacts Iran. An air strike includes bombs, air-to-surface missiles, and air-launched drones. A surface-to-surface missile strike includes one-way attack drones and surface-to-surface missiles such as cruise or ballistic missiles. The following actions do not constitute a qualifying military action: Munitions destroyed or intercepted before impact; Surface-to-air missile strikes; Small-arms fire; Ground incursions; Cyber operations; Naval gunfire and artillery fire; Howitzers, artillery pieces, mortars, and rocket artillery (e.g. MLRS systems); Minor surface-to-surface strikes, including short range loitering munitions, FPV drones, and ATGM strikes; Any threat, authorization, or announcement of force that has not been executed. Any munition that is intercepted or destroyed before impact does not constitute a qualifying military action. Debris, fragments, or any wreckage from intercepted munitions that land on Iran do not constitute a military action regardless of any damage incurred. “Iran” refers to the terrestrial territory of Iran, including its internal waters. Iran’s maritime territory and airspace are not encompassed. Where territorial borders are disputed, all territory claimed by and under the de facto control of Iran as of market creation will qualify. The occurrence, attribution, and timing of a qualifying military action will be primarily determined based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources. Where multiple sources conflict regarding the occurrence, attribution, or timing of a relevant military action, this market will remain open until the earlier of: i) the confirmation of the occurrence, attribution, and timing of the action based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources or ii) 3 full calendar days (Iran Standard Time) from the date of the first credibly reported evidence of the action. If this period would extend past the end date, this market will remain open to allow for 3 full calendar days to pass. At the end of the third calendar day, if conflicting reports remain, the incident will be adjudicated based on the totality of information available from the resolution sources at that time. No single statement, denial, or presentation of evidence will govern where it is contradicted by the totality of information. The resolution sources for this market will be official information from the governments and militaries of the United States and Iran and a consensus of credible reporting.

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

card_id: mt-v02:polymarket:0x72ae00a9c819522724484336c65afddffbd3a96596595530178493e25d6c39d6:2026-08-24

market_id: d44bed97-0ed8-4686-a566-8fb61edb2c96

venue_market_id: 0x72ae00a9c819522724484336c65afddffbd3a96596595530178493e25d6c39d6

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-v02:2026-08-24T21-31-36-484Z

method: market_trust_card_v0_2

row_hash: 1a093c32325c4afc51c6b38d0c0744eed531c41985d20b03f7a6864eae1654bf

previous_row_hash: 3a5b27c8842cb3aa7cc9ca8ff2a3399920b22938a4d0fdc71f24a99ca5b81b07

source_artifact_hashes: cc47afb23b5561c678c3484f0c26565cf34cb14a3b2b8b616f0aa66aa123caaa, 0e336161c08af1533368673d5b3e3d233e7e9a023de3f9ebfed8813913da5411

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: 1a8e9c4d5bd345097ae439096a2c0a7e9e6023ef6e6fe3ca6755f34ed95f0507

How to verify this hash
  1. Fetch the canonical archive bytes: https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x72ae00a9c819522724484336c65afddffbd3a96596595530178493e25d6c39d6/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical
  2. Recompute the digest locally, for example: curl -s "https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x72ae00a9c819522724484336c65afddffbd3a96596595530178493e25d6c39d6/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/v0.2/0x72ae00a9c819522724484336c65afddffbd3a96596595530178493e25d6c39d6/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/v0.2/0x72ae00a9c819522724484336c65afddffbd3a96596595530178493e25d6c39d6/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)

2 of 6 diagnostics have a derivable observable on this stored card; 4 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

insufficient data

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 2026-08-24T21:31:32.133+00:00

Missing input: The stored card has no measured or heuristic executability pillar value (no current orderbook spread or depth input).

Caveats: gated detail requires researcher

Spread and price impact

insufficient data

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

Missing input: The stored card has no current orderbook spread or modeled price-impact input.

Caveats: 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

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

2026-08-24T21:31:32.133Z

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

1s

oldest observed source watermark

Ingested age

853ms

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.
  • absence of signal not proof of coherence
  • artifact hash missing
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 · heuristic

50 / 100

No full-provenance CME signal is linked to this condition in the current ledger window; absence of a signal is not proof of coherence.

no linked cme signal in windowabsence of signal not proof of coherencecme signal window days:7

Executability

weight 20 · pending

65 / 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:one sided orderbook boundaryspread:direct bid ask spread missing

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 · pending

pending

No participant flow rollup materialized yet.

participant flow pending

Integrity-risk screen

weight 10 · pending

pending

No participant concentration rollup materialized yet.

missing input

Audit completeness

weight 5 · measured

85 / 100

3 linked artifacts; 1 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.

artifact hash missingsource watermarks healthy
Coherence blockLinked-market consistency

No full-provenance CME signal is linked to this condition in the current ledger window; absence of a signal is not proof of coherence.

Score

50

heuristic evidence

Source refs

0

linked-market or CME artifacts

no linked cme signal in window absence of signal not proof of coherence cme signal window days:7 recent full provenance signals:23

Robustness blockSensitivity and drivers

Sensitivity verdict

moves

leave-one-out and weight perturbation

Leave-one-out

60-69

score range

Weight perturbation

62-63

score range

Drivers

3

largest weighted contributors

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