Loading
Daily market read
Certainty reflects how much of this market we measured, not how good the market is.
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.
The diligence packet carries the memo language, audit chain, and the Markdown, PDF, and JSON exports for this market.
Open the diligence packetWhy this rating
Composite 53 · Do not cite
Measurement certainty
Low
2 measured · 2 modeled · 2 not assessed
Certainty reflects how much of this market we measured, not how good the market is.
No full-provenance CME signal is linked to this condition in the current ledger window; absence of a signal is not proof of coherence.
Resolution rules
Rules as stated by Polymarket, reproduced verbatim. Convexly has not independently reviewed them and does not endorse them; the rating's resolution-reliability pillar treats rule text as present but not independently reviewed.
This market refers to the tennis match between Alejandro Garcia Carbajal and Javier Barranco Cosano in the ITF M25 Oviedo Men, originally scheduled for August 25, 2026 at 7:00AM ET. This market will resolve to "Over" if the total number of games completed equals or exceeds 22. Otherwise, it will resolve to "Under." All tiebreaks, including any Champions/Super tiebreak, count as one (1) game. If the match is postponed or suspended, this market will remain open until the match has been completed. A postponement alone will not trigger a 50-50 resolution. If the match is permanently abandoned before completion, or if the match has not been completed by September 8, 2026, 11:59 PM ET, this market will resolve 50-50, unless the outcome has already been unconditionally determined based on completed play. The primary resolution source for this market will be official ITF statistics; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
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.
Sign in to see recent trades our collectors observed here: side, size, price, and time for every recorded fill.
Create a free account1 of the 360 wallets whose full on-chain history Convexly has walked and reconciled were observed trading this market.
Presence is a coverage fact, not a recommendation: a complete record means the wallet's history is fully accounted for as of its certification block, not that the wallet is skilled. Fill counts reflect what Convexly's own collectors observed; wallets outside this set also trade this market.
Quote it verbatim. The number and how the set was chosen travel together; the method is frozen and the per-wallet table is public.
Convexly rates this polymarket market "Carbajal vs. Cosano: Match O/U 21.5" as Do not cite, as of 2026-08-25 (UTC).
Per Convexly Market Trust, the polymarket market "Carbajal vs. Cosano: Match O/U 21.5" is rated Do not cite as of 2026-08-25T17:01:43.612Z (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/itf-carbaja-cosano-2026-08-25-match-total-21pt5
Canonical URL: https://www.convexly.app/markets/itf-carbaja-cosano-2026-08-25-match-total-21pt5
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.
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 source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
Participant flow inputs exist but do not meet identity-coverage floors; descriptive only.
One or more screen indicators flagged at a low level. A reason to look, not a finding about anyone.
9 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
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 = 70.0.
Caveat: 2 pillars not assessed yet; the score will recompute as the substrate fills in.
Convexly is independent and is not affiliated with or endorsed by Polymarket or Manifold. Wallet and market data are derived from publicly available venue sources.
© Convexly 2026