Daily market read
Bonn: Max Houkes vs Roberto Carballes Baena
participant quality pending elevated unknown flow.
Use only as a review target. Current-card issues must clear before this price is used as evidence.
The diligence packet carries the memo language, audit chain, and the Markdown, PDF, and JSON exports for this market.
Open the diligence packetWhy this read
Why this rating
Composite 64 · Do not cite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.
- · no linked cme signal in window
- · absence of signal not proof of coherence
- · cme signal window days: 7
- · recent full provenance signals: 126
50+20.8 - Executabilitypendingweight 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 0.37pp
65no contrib - Resolution reliabilityheuristicweight 20.0
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
- · resolution metadata present manual review pending
70+23.3 - Participant flowpendingweight 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
n/ano contrib - Integrity risk screenheuristicweight 10.0
Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.
- · top-3 wallets control 89% of notional flow
- · 20% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedly
- · flow events: 16
- · distinct wallets: 9
67+11.2 - 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: 2 pillars pending; the score will recompute as the substrate fills in.
Experimental rating caveat
Market Trust Cards are experimental market-quality diagnostics, not compliance certifications or validated credit ratings.
What travels with this read
Market Trust is a canary preview: verdict cutpoints are operator-set, and each read is a dated, descriptive diagnostic of market quality, not a prediction of the outcome and not a claim about what the probability should be. A prospective calibration test is filed and matures on resolved outcomes.
- Hard cap: participant quality pending elevated unknown flow.
- 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.
- 20% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedly
- absence of signal not proof of coherence
Cite this reading
Quote it verbatim. The number and its bound travel together; the method is frozen and the per-wallet table is public.
Convexly rates this polymarket market "Bonn: Max Houkes vs Roberto Carballes Baena" as Do not cite, as of 2026-07-28 (UTC).
Per Convexly Market Trust, the polymarket market "Bonn: Max Houkes vs Roberto Carballes Baena" is rated Do not cite as of 2026-07-28T11:30:31.337Z (UTC). The rating describes whether the quoted market price was a clean enough data object to cite at that timestamp. This citation is market diligence, not investment advice, not a trading instruction, not a forecast, and not proof that the market probability is correct. Daily read: https://www.convexly.app/markets/atp-houkes-baena-2026-07-27
Canonical URL: https://www.convexly.app/markets/atp-houkes-baena-2026-07-27
Boundary of this page
This daily read 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 this market price had enough substrate to cite, monitor, discount, or ignore at the as-of timestamp, with receipts attached in the diligence packet.