Market Trust diligence packet
Augsburg: Andrej Nedic vs Juan Estevez
2 of 6 pillars measured, 3 modeled by fixed rules, 1 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
65 / 100
Interval 40-74
Evidence confidence
low
58 / 100
Source health
source gate passed
1 sources | dropped 0
Audit chain
c5be308598...
row hash verified
Memo language
Convexly rates this polymarket market "Augsburg: Andrej Nedic vs Juan Estevez" as Do not cite.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: 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.
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as a research preview (status: canary_preview), the polymarket market "Augsburg: Andrej Nedic vs Juan Estevez" is rated Do not cite (market quality 65 / 100; Interval 40-74) as of 2026-08-24T14:03:19.744Z (UTC). Caveat to carry: participant quality elevated unknown flow. Packet: https://www.convexly.app/market-trust/packet/polymarket/0xffce8ed60d88e144e457f87eeac58639d8aa4e10cbd563fb2ac60b8c5126ac8f. Verdict row hash (SHA-256): c5be3085988e9fdb78a94e72beffdfe89c57d86a005e80e22714ea27ec643637. 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 current blocker: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
How the score adds upWhy this verdict
Why this rating
Composite 65 · Do not cite
Measurement certainty
Low
2 measured · 3 modeled · 1 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+20.8 - 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 0.23pp
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+23.3 - Participant flowMeasuredreported without a scoreweight 20.0
9/19 accounts identifiable; identity coverage 45%; top-account flow share 45%; net directional flow net buy 90%. Descriptive participant flow only; not a skill or smart-money signal.
- · below publishable sample floor
- · current account score join
- · edge score composite descriptive not skill
- · high participant concentration
no scoreno contrib - Integrity-risk screenModeled estimatefixed rules, not a per-market measurementweight 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 88% of notional flow
- · flow events: 46
- · distinct wallets: 19
- · wash round trips: 0
75+12.5 - Audit completenessMeasuredweight 5.0
3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
- · artifact hashes present
- · source watermarks healthy
100+8.3
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 = 60.0.
Caveat: 1 pillar not assessed yet; the score will recompute as the substrate fills in.
Market identityWhat is being rated
Venue
polymarket
condition 0xffce8ed60d88e144...
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 Andrej Nedic and Juan Estevez in the Augsburg, originally scheduled for August 24, 2026 at 4:00AM ET. This market will resolve to 'Andrej Nedic' if Andrej Nedic advances against Juan Estevez. This market will resolve to 'Juan Estevez' if Juan Estevez advances against Andrej Nedic. 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:0xffce8ed60d88e144e457f87eeac58639d8aa4e10cbd563fb2ac60b8c5126ac8f:2026-08-24
market_id: 9d4208a8-f789-431b-9a58-6bf4e6484f0e
venue_market_id: 0xffce8ed60d88e144e457f87eeac58639d8aa4e10cbd563fb2ac60b8c5126ac8f
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: c5be3085988e9fdb78a94e72beffdfe89c57d86a005e80e22714ea27ec643637
previous_row_hash: 57f669cec167fe1b2f52779087a4248c05cb1d5021eddba9c244ff2e3622bdb9
source_artifact_hashes: 9ed3a66c2d997aae772c45ecab78725636aa51ab3c3f8cbb49917cdf85f8fe3c, e17233395107d75ec3ad69a9bc3ffd553ae117d0a99fd87557ee957d74b4688e
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: 571b1516e503ece5f4309bf4b9120adc7dc15e5a324985b5d165d652f89eab91
How to verify this hash
- Fetch the canonical archive bytes: https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xffce8ed60d88e144e457f87eeac58639d8aa4e10cbd563fb2ac60b8c5126ac8f/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical
- Recompute the digest locally, for example: curl -s "https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xffce8ed60d88e144e457f87eeac58639d8aa4e10cbd563fb2ac60b8c5126ac8f/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/v0.2/0xffce8ed60d88e144e457f87eeac58639d8aa4e10cbd563fb2ac60b8c5126ac8f/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/v0.2/0xffce8ed60d88e144e457f87eeac58639d8aa4e10cbd563fb2ac60b8c5126ac8f/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)
3 of 6 diagnostics have a derivable observable on this stored card; 3 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 2026-08-24T14:03:04.31+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
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
2026-08-24T14:03:04.310Z
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
4s
oldest observed source watermark
Ingested age
2s
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: participant quality elevated unknown flow.
- Hard cap: Participant-flow coverage is measured, but unknown flow remains material.
- 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
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
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.
Resolution reliability
weight 20 · heuristic
70 / 100
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
Participant flow
weight 20 · measured
pending
9/19 accounts identifiable; identity coverage 45%; top-account flow share 45%; net directional flow net buy 90%. Descriptive participant flow only; not a skill or smart-money signal.
Integrity-risk screen
weight 10 · heuristic
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
63-72
score range
Weight perturbation
64-66
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.
- Integrity-risk screen is heuristic, 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.