Market Trust diligence packet
Augsburg: Matthew William Donald vs Benjamin Hassan
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.
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.
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
32 / 100
Source health
source gate passed
1 sources | dropped 0
Audit chain
9ab1803f7a...
row hash verified
Memo language
Convexly rates this polymarket market "Augsburg: Matthew William Donald vs Benjamin Hassan" as Do not cite.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: Too much participant flow is unknown while participant-flow coverage is still pending. This is market diligence, not a trading instruction or proof that the market probability is correct.
Caveat to carry: Too much participant flow is unknown while participant-flow coverage is still pending.
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preview (status: canary_preview), the polymarket market "Augsburg: Matthew William Donald vs Benjamin Hassan" is rated Do not cite (market quality 63 / 100; Interval 20-76) as of 2026-08-24T11:31:13.261Z (UTC). Caveat to carry: Too much participant flow is unknown while participant-flow coverage is still pending. Packet: https://www.convexly.app/market-trust/packet/polymarket/0xff7d9ca95dbe5d9a0058de7283d1e0b7c4b299f51e978f6492064bb6c67e9c4e. Verdict row hash (SHA-256): 9ab1803f7a66355b1580b96d9925c70d92aaec78e8273ce0571a58f425afa69d. 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: Too much participant flow is unknown while participant-flow coverage is still pending.
- 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 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 0.93pp
55not 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
Participant flow inputs exist but do not meet identity-coverage floors; descriptive only.
- · below publishable sample floor
- · current account score join
- · edge score composite descriptive not skill
- · high participant concentration
not assessednot assessed - Integrity-risk screenNot assessednot yet measured for this marketweight 10.0
One or more screen indicators flagged at a low level. A reason to look, not a finding about anyone.
- · top-3 wallets control 100% of notional flow
- · flow events: 2
- · distinct wallets: 2
- · wash round trips: 0
75not assessed - Audit completenessMeasuredweight 5.0
3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
- · artifact hashes present
- · source watermarks healthy
100+10.0
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 0xff7d9ca95dbe5d9a...
Category
Tennis
used for coverage and validation breadth
Market status
active
venue-provided lifecycle state when available
Resolution rule
This market refers to the tennis match between Matthew William Donald and Benjamin Hassan in the Augsburg, Germany, Qualifying, originally scheduled for August 24, 2026 at 6:00AM ET. This market will resolve to 'Matthew William Donald' if Matthew William Donald advances against Benjamin Hassan. This market will resolve to 'Benjamin Hassan' if Benjamin Hassan advances against Matthew William Donald. If the match is canceled (not played at all), ends in a tie, or a winner has not been determined by September 7, 2026, 11:59 PM ET (14 days after the scheduled start), this market will resolve to 50-50. If the match begins but is not completed, and one player advances due to the opponent's retirement, default, or disqualification, this market will resolve to the player who advances. If the match ends in a walkover (player withdraws before the start and the other advances automatically), this market will resolve to 50-50. The primary resolution source will be official information from the ATP Tour. 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:0xff7d9ca95dbe5d9a0058de7283d1e0b7c4b299f51e978f6492064bb6c67e9c4e:2026-08-24
market_id: 8e6fe0ad-15e0-4be0-ace0-2223cbc0ab17
venue_market_id: 0xff7d9ca95dbe5d9a0058de7283d1e0b7c4b299f51e978f6492064bb6c67e9c4e
resolution_source: https://www.atptour.com/en/scores/current
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: 9ab1803f7a66355b1580b96d9925c70d92aaec78e8273ce0571a58f425afa69d
previous_row_hash: none recorded
source_artifact_hashes: 55852df47c562e52fbcce1669a90af907651c2a437f7f597e5022d3d9574c257, 57757621825f0f5e84123c6195f253f525531347b8058b55fee6f6747f546b0d
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: 19a74ee749694deebe2b9aaf60dcb33869bb09f1f91081aba0e27eb112d01f40
How to verify this hash
- Fetch the canonical archive bytes: https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xff7d9ca95dbe5d9a0058de7283d1e0b7c4b299f51e978f6492064bb6c67e9c4e/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical
- Recompute the digest locally, for example: curl -s "https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xff7d9ca95dbe5d9a0058de7283d1e0b7c4b299f51e978f6492064bb6c67e9c4e/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/v0.2/0xff7d9ca95dbe5d9a0058de7283d1e0b7c4b299f51e978f6492064bb6c67e9c4e/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/v0.2/0xff7d9ca95dbe5d9a0058de7283d1e0b7c4b299f51e978f6492064bb6c67e9c4e/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)
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 2026-08-24T11:30:57.654+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 (https://www.atptour.com/en/scores/current) 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
2026-08-24T11:30:57.654Z
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
3s
oldest observed source watermark
Ingested age
791ms
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: Too much participant flow is unknown while participant-flow coverage is still pending.
- 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 hashes present
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.
Executability
weight 20 · pending
55 / 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
Participant flow inputs exist but do not meet identity-coverage floors; descriptive only.
Integrity-risk screen
weight 10 · pending
75 / 100
One or more screen indicators flagged at a low level. A reason to look, not a finding about anyone.
Audit completeness
weight 5 · measured
100 / 100
3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
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
60-68
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.
- 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.
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.