Market Trust
ExperimentalDecide whether a market price is strong enough to cite.
Search the markets already in the rated set to see one of four answers, with the caveat and receipt attached: use it, use it with caveats, discount it, or do not cite it. During canary calibration most rated prices land at discount or do not cite: that is the diagnostic doing its job, not a gap.
Strong enough only with the current evidence trail attached.
Useful, but the caveats should travel with the number.
A weak input for decisions until missing evidence improves.
Too thin, stale, incoherent, or unresolved to rely on.
One scale, strongest warning on the right · 6 markets graded in the canary preview set
No market is clean enough to cite yet, and that is the diagnostic doing its job, not a gap. During canary calibration most prices land at discount or do not cite. The board only moves a market toward Use as its evidence, freshness, and resolution quality actually improve.
Market Trust remains a preview until resolved-outcome history and the frozen validation contract are mature enough for v1.
Rated markets
6 graded · experimental| Will the U.S. invade Iran before 2027? | Do not cite | 73 | low | 1d ago | |
| Will Spain win the 2026 FIFA World Cup? | Do not cite | 73 | low | 1d ago | |
| Will there be no change in Fed interest rates after the July 2026 meeting? | Do not cite | 73 | low | 1d ago | |
| Will Argentina win the 2026 FIFA World Cup? | Do not cite | 73 | low | 1d ago | |
| Will England win the 2026 FIFA World Cup? | Do not cite | 73 | low | 1d ago | |
| Will France win on 2026-07-14? | Discount | 74 | medium | 1d ago |
More views+
1. Start with use, use with caveats, discount, or do not cite.
2. Carry the caveat with the market price.
3. Open the receipt only when you need the technical proof.
Experimental rating caveat
Market Trust Cards are experimental market-quality diagnostics, not compliance certifications or validated credit ratings.
Freshness gate
Canary Market Trust snapshot is outside the current daily window. Show as latest archived evidence until the next fresh run lands. Candidate cards below are archived review artifacts until a fresh materialization run lands.
Market-quality scorecard
One plain-English status plus a pillar-by-pillar explanation of whether a market is currently usable, caveated, discounted, or too weak to rely on.
Visible caveats
v0.2 separates measured inputs from heuristics, so a buyer can see which parts of the rating are mature and which are still evidence collection.
Audit trail
Each card carries source artifacts and a row hash, linking the public card back to the reproducible Convexly research ledger.
Future stable-card shape
A stable card must answer the buyer's next question.
This is still a preview surface. A stable rating is not just a higher score. It is a card a user can cite in a memo because the verdict, evidence, limits, and next action are all visible together.
Verdict
Can I quote this probability?
Use, use with caveats, discount, or do not cite, with the exact methodology version attached.
Evidence
What supports the verdict?
Coherence, depth, participant quality, resolution reliability, integrity-risk screens, and source health.
Limits
What is missing or blocked?
Unknown flow share, stale snapshots, dropped events, data-rights gaps, and heuristic inputs travel with the score.
Next action
What should I do with it?
Cite with caveats, monitor for freshness, request a partner feed, or wait for resolved-outcome evidence.
Current canary
Latest archived candidate cards with visible evidence boundaries.
These cards come from the current Market Trust candidate table. They are useful for internal review and buyer demos, but remain a preview until freshness, coverage, and outcome-history gates stay green over time.
Will France win on 2026-07-14?
Bottom line (archived read)
Discount. Monitor, but do not cite as current. The evidence is useful as an archived read until the data freshness window refreshes.
On this market the binding constraint is Integrity risk screen (90/100): Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
This 0–100 score grades the market’s quality and citability, not its odds; a market can trade at any probability and still score low.
Freshness gate: Canary card is 1.4d ago. Do not use this as a current card until the source-health and materialization jobs refresh.
Trust score /100
74
interval 48-82
Evidence
3 measured
2 heuristic · 1 pending
Freshness
aging
33.8h lag
Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
Executive answer
Discount: treat this as a market-diligence snapshot, not a price forecast.
Technical score waterfall +
Math guardrails
Quality
74
interval 48-82
Confidence
65
medium
Driver
participant quality pending elevated unknown flow
Sensitivity
stable under sensitivity
Participant substrate
Pillar
pending
Scored flow
21.9%
12/130 accounts
Unknown flow
78.1%
verdict capped
4 possible wash round-trips detected
Evidence: 3 measured · 2 heuristic · 1 pending · 0 blocked
audit 4fc7047a7a366cb0877a9706090c86028da7e2bb1f079eece04453eafe597b85
Why this rating
Why this rating
Composite 74 · Discount
- Coherenceheuristicweight 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.
50+15.6 - Executabilitymeasuredweight 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.
95+23.8 - Resolution reliabilityheuristicweight 20.0
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
70+17.5 - Participant qualitypendingweight 20.0
Participant-quality inputs exist but do not meet coverage floors.
n/ano contrib - Integrity risk screenmeasuredweight 10.0
Flow patterns clean; no wash-trade or coordination signals.
90+11.3 - Audit completenessmeasuredweight 5.0
17 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
100+6.3
Will the U.S. invade Iran before 2027?
Bottom line (archived read)
Do not cite. Monitor, but do not cite as current. The evidence is useful as an archived read until the data freshness window refreshes.
On this market the binding constraint is Executability (95/100): Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
This 0–100 score grades the market’s quality and citability, not its odds; a market can trade at any probability and still score low.
Freshness gate: Canary card is 1.4d ago. Do not use this as a current card until the source-health and materialization jobs refresh.
Trust score /100
73
interval 35-83
Evidence
2 measured
2 heuristic · 2 pending
Freshness
aging
33.8h lag
Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
Executive answer
Do not cite: treat this as a market-diligence snapshot, not a price forecast.
Technical score waterfall +
Math guardrails
Quality
73
interval 35-83
Confidence
53
low
Driver
participant quality pending high unknown flow
Sensitivity
stable under sensitivity
Participant substrate
Pillar
pending
Scored flow
0%
0/1 accounts
Unknown flow
100%
verdict capped
absence_of_signal_not_proof_of_coherence
Evidence: 2 measured · 2 heuristic · 2 pending · 0 blocked
audit 16176edbc4bcc42b84dbc9dd2166f8378cb4765312225d5c6903ffbc1b7a660e
Why this rating
Why this rating
Composite 73 · Do not cite
- Coherenceheuristicweight 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.
50+17.9 - Executabilitymeasuredweight 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.
95+27.1 - Resolution reliabilityheuristicweight 20.0
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
70+20.0 - Participant qualitypendingweight 20.0
Participant-quality inputs exist but do not meet coverage floors.
n/ano contrib - Integrity risk screenpendingweight 10.0
Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.
75no contrib - Audit completenessmeasuredweight 5.0
7 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
100+7.1
Will Spain win the 2026 FIFA World Cup?
Bottom line (archived read)
Do not cite. Monitor, but do not cite as current. The evidence is useful as an archived read until the data freshness window refreshes.
On this market the binding constraint is Executability (95/100): Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
This 0–100 score grades the market’s quality and citability, not its odds; a market can trade at any probability and still score low.
Freshness gate: Canary card is 1.4d ago. Do not use this as a current card until the source-health and materialization jobs refresh.
Trust score /100
73
interval 35-83
Evidence
2 measured
2 heuristic · 2 pending
Freshness
aging
33.8h lag
Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
Executive answer
Do not cite: treat this as a market-diligence snapshot, not a price forecast.
Technical score waterfall +
Math guardrails
Quality
73
interval 35-83
Confidence
53
low
Driver
participant quality pending high unknown flow
Sensitivity
stable under sensitivity
Participant substrate
Pillar
pending
Scored flow
0%
0/3 accounts
Unknown flow
100%
verdict capped
absence_of_signal_not_proof_of_coherence
Evidence: 2 measured · 2 heuristic · 2 pending · 0 blocked
audit 705d9cebeafab0cb51dcf58e980df2eb1bb999ed88346f50dd7e5b5a37944a7b
Why this rating
Why this rating
Composite 73 · Do not cite
- Coherenceheuristicweight 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.
50+17.9 - Executabilitymeasuredweight 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.
95+27.1 - Resolution reliabilityheuristicweight 20.0
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
70+20.0 - Participant qualitypendingweight 20.0
Participant-quality inputs exist but do not meet coverage floors.
n/ano contrib - Integrity risk screenpendingweight 10.0
Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.
75no contrib - Audit completenessmeasuredweight 5.0
7 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
100+7.1
Will there be no change in Fed interest rates after the July 2026 meeting?
Bottom line (archived read)
Do not cite. Monitor, but do not cite as current. The evidence is useful as an archived read until the data freshness window refreshes.
On this market the binding constraint is Executability (95/100): Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
This 0–100 score grades the market’s quality and citability, not its odds; a market can trade at any probability and still score low.
Freshness gate: Canary card is 1.4d ago. Do not use this as a current card until the source-health and materialization jobs refresh.
Trust score /100
73
interval 35-83
Evidence
2 measured
2 heuristic · 2 pending
Freshness
aging
33.8h lag
Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
Executive answer
Do not cite: treat this as a market-diligence snapshot, not a price forecast.
Technical score waterfall +
Math guardrails
Quality
73
interval 35-83
Confidence
53
low
Driver
participant quality pending high unknown flow
Sensitivity
stable under sensitivity
Participant substrate
Pillar
pending
Scored flow
0%
0/1 accounts
Unknown flow
100%
verdict capped
absence_of_signal_not_proof_of_coherence
Macro caveat
cross_venue_key missing; registry keyword match only
Evidence: 2 measured · 2 heuristic · 2 pending · 0 blocked
audit 8cc2f4d42c862ed42d11b93aa7b635b2c324c525608b0fd712a2af4e2058a822
Why this rating
Why this rating
Composite 73 · Do not cite
- Coherenceheuristicweight 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.
50+17.9 - Executabilitymeasuredweight 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.
95+27.1 - Resolution reliabilityheuristicweight 20.0
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
70+20.0 - Participant qualitypendingweight 20.0
Participant-quality inputs exist but do not meet coverage floors.
n/ano contrib - Integrity risk screenpendingweight 10.0
Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.
75no contrib - Audit completenessmeasuredweight 5.0
7 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
100+7.1
Will Argentina win the 2026 FIFA World Cup?
Bottom line (archived read)
Do not cite. Monitor, but do not cite as current. The evidence is useful as an archived read until the data freshness window refreshes.
On this market the binding constraint is Audit completeness (100/100): Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
This 0–100 score grades the market’s quality and citability, not its odds; a market can trade at any probability and still score low.
Freshness gate: Canary card is 1.4d ago. Do not use this as a current card until the source-health and materialization jobs refresh.
Trust score /100
73
interval 39-84
Evidence
1 measured
4 heuristic · 1 pending
Freshness
aging
33.8h lag
Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
Executive answer
Do not cite: treat this as a market-diligence snapshot, not a price forecast.
Technical score waterfall +
Math guardrails
Quality
73
interval 39-84
Confidence
49
low
Driver
participant quality pending high unknown flow
Sensitivity
stable under sensitivity
Participant substrate
Pillar
pending
Scored flow
0.2%
4/32 accounts
Unknown flow
99.8%
verdict capped
absence_of_signal_not_proof_of_coherence
Evidence: 1 measured · 4 heuristic · 1 pending · 0 blocked
audit 8f2b4f46e9d0c9f8ab66c8d1bc44b34c1d2127b98f79d8cfd3f7a2a2a2c5e533
Why this rating
Why this rating
Composite 73 · Do not cite
- Coherenceheuristicweight 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.
50+15.6 - Executabilityheuristicweight 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.
95+23.8 - Resolution reliabilityheuristicweight 20.0
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
70+17.5 - Participant qualitypendingweight 20.0
Participant-quality inputs exist but do not meet coverage floors.
n/ano contrib - Integrity risk screenheuristicweight 10.0
Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.
75+9.4 - Audit completenessmeasuredweight 5.0
3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
100+6.3
Will England win the 2026 FIFA World Cup?
Bottom line (archived read)
Do not cite. Monitor, but do not cite as current. The evidence is useful as an archived read until the data freshness window refreshes.
On this market the binding constraint is Audit completeness (100/100): Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
This 0–100 score grades the market’s quality and citability, not its odds; a market can trade at any probability and still score low.
Freshness gate: Canary card is 1.4d ago. Do not use this as a current card until the source-health and materialization jobs refresh.
Trust score /100
73
interval 32-85
Evidence
1 measured
3 heuristic · 2 pending
Freshness
aging
33.8h lag
Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
Executive answer
Do not cite: treat this as a market-diligence snapshot, not a price forecast.
Technical score waterfall +
Math guardrails
Quality
73
interval 32-85
Confidence
37
low
Driver
participant quality pending high unknown flow
Sensitivity
stable under sensitivity
Participant substrate
Pillar
pending
Scored flow
0%
0/1 accounts
Unknown flow
100%
verdict capped
absence_of_signal_not_proof_of_coherence
Evidence: 1 measured · 3 heuristic · 2 pending · 0 blocked
audit 3fe7e59ff75fdeddaaacf5174af50eb9b9651da959a3f171a96828c5371ba4a3
Why this rating
Why this rating
Composite 73 · Do not cite
- Coherenceheuristicweight 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.
50+17.9 - Executabilityheuristicweight 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.
95+27.1 - Resolution reliabilityheuristicweight 20.0
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
70+20.0 - Participant qualitypendingweight 20.0
Participant-quality inputs exist but do not meet coverage floors.
n/ano contrib - Integrity risk screenpendingweight 10.0
Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.
75no contrib - Audit completenessmeasuredweight 5.0
3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
100+7.1
Methodology & validation statusthe work behind the verdicts: maturation lanes + readiness gates
Research preview status
What this preview can and cannot tell you yet.
The canary model should make a market legible to an advisor, journalist, venue operator, or institutional risk team: what supports the rating, what is still weak, and what has to resolve before Convexly can make stronger claims.
Current card issues
These are live card-health issues, not long-term validation requirements.
Before a stable rating
These are evidence requirements for public promotion. They can remain open while the internal canary batch is healthy.
Candidate cards
6
latest audit run
Measured inputs
31%
11/36 pillar inputs
Clean source
6/6
no stale snapshot or dropped events
Sensitivity-stable verdicts
6/6
sensitivity-stable cards
Pending
10
inputs still being collected
Blocked rights
0
data unavailable by policy
Pillar measurement
Participant quality
0/6 cards measured
Public wallet flow is joined into Edge Score cohorts when sample floors are met. The remaining work is coverage breadth, not inventing the pillar.
View wallet cohorts
Order book
Liquidity and depth
4/6 cards measured
Canary cards now distinguish shallow snapshots from measurable depth, so weak markets are downgraded instead of hidden behind a single score.
Open canary proof
Integrity
Integrity-risk screen
1/6 cards measured
Flow concentration and pattern screens are treated as evidence flags. They are not proof of intent, and they should travel with every rating.
Read method
Freshness
Source-health gate
6/6 cards clean
A card should not graduate while its source snapshot is stale or event drops are present. Freshness is part of the rating boundary.
Inspect source health
Robustness
Sensitivity check
6/6 verdicts stable
The score must survive leave-one-pillar-out and weight-perturbation checks before the verdict is safe to show as durable.
Review guardrails
Validation
Resolved-outcome ledger
0/6 cards unblocked
This is the claim-upgrade gate. Market Trust stays experimental until resolved cohorts show whether high-trust cards were actually more useful.
Track outcomes
Method
Formula freeze
0/6 cards unblocked
The formula must be frozen before validation so the backtest cannot silently move the target after seeing outcomes.
View preregs
Production readiness
What we're still proving before this is a stable rating.
Market Trust is usable as a preview diligence packet, not a stable public rating contract. The goal is a packet a buyer can cite because the verdict, caveat, source status, participant evidence, integrity screen, and validation limits are all visible together.
Current contract
Status: canary_preview. A formal internal validation review is required before this moves from preview to a stable public rating.
Resolved outcome ledger
BlockedConvexly cannot claim Market Trust tiers predict cleaner or more useful markets until resolved card-time rows exist.
Now: The preview cards carry validation placeholders and promotion blockers; resolved-outcome evidence is still the hard gate.
Next: Write resolved card-time rows, show the denominator, and publish positive and negative result handling.
Formula freeze
BlockedA buyer should know the score was frozen before validation, not tuned after outcomes were visible.
Now: The promotion contract exists, but the public formula and thresholds are not yet validated as frozen.
Next: Freeze weights, thresholds, caps, and sensitivity rules in code and link the receipt before any stable-rating language.
Source freshness
In progressA current-card verdict must degrade when Polymarket or Kalshi inputs are stale, failing, or dropping events.
Now: Candidate cards already expose source health and freshness gates; sustained clean operation is still required.
Next: Maintain the clean-source window required by the promotion contract and keep card language downgraded during stale windows.
Participant-quality coverage
In progressThe rating should know whether meaningful market flow came from scored public participants or mostly unknown flow.
Now: Participant evidence is joined where public wallet-flow floors are met; coverage is not broad enough for a stable public rating.
Next: Raise scored-notional coverage, keep unknown-flow caveats visible, and separate aggregate-only venue limits.
Integrity-risk screen
In progressIntegrity language must stay a risk screen until reviewed positive and negative cohorts prove detector quality.
Now: The preview screen exposes concentration and pattern flags without turning them into intent claims.
Next: Label review cohorts, measure false positives and false negatives, then publish the screen limits.
Outcome calibration
BlockedThe four verdicts need observed calibration before Convexly can say one tier is empirically safer than another.
Now: The verdict framework is visible, but the resolved cohort needed for calibrated tier language is not mature.
Next: Compare use, use-with-caveats, discount, and do-not-cite cohorts against clean resolution and reviewer labels.
Stable public snapshot
The stable public snapshot remains available while the candidate model earns production history. Search is intentionally simple: market slug, question, category, or condition ID.
Will Bitcoin reach $250,000 by December 31, 2026?
This market may be useful as an input, but it carries visible quality caveats. Cite the probability only alongside those caveats.
Evidence: 3 measured · 3 heuristic · 1 pending
v0.1 score
73
Will Albania advance through the second Eurovision Semi-Final?
This market has enough quality concerns that the raw probability should be discounted unless corroborated by other evidence.
Evidence: 3 measured · 3 heuristic · 1 pending
v0.1 score
49
Will Solstice launch a token by June 30 2026?
This market has enough quality concerns that the raw probability should be discounted unless corroborated by other evidence.
Evidence: 3 measured · 3 heuristic · 1 pending
v0.1 score
47
Will Croatia advance through the first Eurovision Semi-Final?
This market has enough quality concerns that the raw probability should be discounted unless corroborated by other evidence.
Evidence: 3 measured · 3 heuristic · 1 pending
v0.1 score
46
Will Crude Oil (CL) settle over $52 on the final trading day of June 2026?
This market should not be cited as meaningful evidence from Convexly's v0.1 perspective.
Evidence: 3 measured · 3 heuristic · 1 pending
v0.1 score
35