Readings may not describe today1 scheduled close did not landWhy →Hide
1 scheduled close did not land — the daily index publish was due at 10:37 UTC on 2026-09-10 and the newest print on file is still 2026-09-09. The reading below is carried forward from that date and does not describe today.
Readings below are the last that settled; none has been carried forward, restated or interpolated to cover the gap. Every row states its own date and wears its own age. How the desk publishes
W.E.T. Inverse Chicago Football Index 6mo
v1StandingExperimentalStandingchicago-football-inside-six-months reads 27.93 against this index’s 72.07. Same markets, opposite side.
45 input(s) were quarantined by sentinel/v1 before this close and are excluded from the reading above.
- The board stops listing markets that name Chicago's football clubs inside this window: the selector then admits fewer than 6 markets and the index prints nothing rather than a level over a roster that no longer states the thesis.
- Weight coverage falls below the declared floor of 95%, at which point the published state is insufficient_data and no value is printed — never a value carried forward from the last close that had one.
- A Chicago club in another sport starts sharing this one's published vocabulary, at which point the declared exclusions stop separating the two and the composition would silently become an all-sports index for this metro wearing a single-sport name.
How this reading was constructed (9)
- universe: resolved by universe/v1 over 11653 candidate canonical event(s) from the `tape-text` source (
${m.title ?? ''}${m.marketRef}), admitting 37. Rejections by reason: excluded-keyword 1031, keyword-miss 10551, horizon-outside-window 34. - universe: the declared 60–200d horizon window (axis 8) was APPLIED and removed 34 event(s) that every other selector admitted. A member resolving outside the window this index publishes is not a member of this index's horizon, whatever else it is.
- universe: 10551 event(s) missed the keyword screen on the `tape-text` source, which carries
${m.title ?? ''}${m.marketRef}and NOT the venue subtitle, tag or series the nomination pool sees. That count is the UPPER BOUND on what the richer string could have added here; it is published rather than estimated, because the tape cannot supply the text that would settle it. - 1031 canonical event(s) matched an excludeKeywords term and were not admitted. An exclusion is an ADMISSION decision and never a side one (§3.1): nothing here flips a member, it only declines to hold it.
- eligibility: 29 of 37 admitted event(s) left the roster on the spec's own declared eligibility (minVolume 250, maxSpread 0.1, price 0.02-0.98) — by reason: below-min-volume 25, spread-too-wide 4. An ineligible market is out of the universe; a member the close could not price stays in it and is counted against κ.
- orientation: the declared `threshold` framing axis (§3.3) was re-read on this tape and took NO force [undetermined:coverage], framing 0 of 8 members and holding 0 of them NO. The declared threshold axis frames 0 of 8 members (0%), under the published 50% bar, so it takes no force today and no member is flipped by it. An axis that frames a corner of the board would state a direction for members it never read. This is the spec's own invalidation condition, measured rather than assumed. The axis is re-read at every close rather than frozen into a declared side table, so a roster whose contracts resolve and are replaced is oriented by the rule this spec published rather than by one evening's reading of it (cultivation-orientation/v3).
- orientation: because the declared `threshold` axis took no force today, every member not named in `sideRules.declaredSides` and not matched by a keyword list is held on the venue's own YES framing. That reads the board's LISTING CONVENTION rather than this index's thesis, and it is the state the spec's own invalidation conditions name — published here rather than left to look like a decision the axis made.
- no published document file was found for this spec, so the byte comparison had nothing to compare against and only the recompile legs ran. The whitepaper is compiled per request by /methodology/<slug>, which is a publication lag rather than a ledger fault — but the ABSENCE is published here, because an unsupplied optional parameter is invisible on the row and that invisibility is what let this leg go unrun.
- the level was chained as a price relative over the PRIOR composition at today's prices: 7 prior member(s), of which 0 could not be priced today and left through the DIVISOR (0 at a venue-reported resolution, 0 at their last governed mark, 0 unpriced on both dates). Price relative 0.994993993 against a gauge basis of 0.720730586; the divisor moved to absorb the composition and weight change, so what the level published is the price move and nothing else.
The governed close level above is divisor-chained: it tracks how the desk’s reading of this perspective has moved since 2026-08-23, and it survives a roster change because the divisor absorbs it. It is not a basket total return.
The basket total return below is a position book: it holds a fixed set of contracts from its own inception and reports what that book did, marks and settlements included. A roster change starts a new book rather than being absorbed.
They share a base of 1,000 and nothing else. Expect them to differ, and read the one that answers your question — the chained level for “where does this perspective stand”, the book for “what would holding it have done”.
spec d4995473c62175c3 · methodology c12b6280b2d16134 · closed by standing/v1 · lifecycle experimental · class standing
As of Sep 9, 2026 · last moved Sep 9, 2026 · scale 0–100 (Low support → High support)
The same markets naming Chicago Bears, read on the down case of the threshold axis rather than the up case.
hypothetical · mid marks · before fees, spread and slippage
Basket performance
hypothetical · mid marks · before fees, spread and slippage- Basket total return
- 1000.52
- Since inception
- +0.05%
- Cost to cross
- —
- Holdings marked
- 100.0% of 7
- 1 day
- +0.01%
- 7 day
- +0.22%
- Markets held
- 7
- Settled
- 0
- Rebalanced out
- 0
- Hit rate
- —
- Cash
- 50.0%
- Inception
- 2026-08-23
- Weighting
- Equal notional
- Marks
- Two-sided mid
- Days tracked
- 16
Equal notional from each holding’s inception mark, re-marked at the two-sided mid. Percentages only, size-blind — never a cash figure and never a performance claim.
Cost to cross is the weighted half-spread at the touch on the newest mark tape: what entering at the quote rather than the midpoint would have cost. It is the price of the FIRST unit and says nothing about the tenth — the resting size beside each holding is published so a reader can judge whether their own size fits. It is not deducted from any return above.
A published measurement of what these markets did together. Not an account, not directly investable; W.E.T. never handles orders.
Holdings · 7 markets
held since 2026-08-23 · the reading above is computed over today's roster, which differs- 2027 Pro Football Champion — Chicagogemini · NO · entry 96cgeminiNO96c96c−0.5%15.0%Gemini Predictions ↗
- Will Chicago Bears win the 2026 NFC North?polymarket · NO · entry 79cpolymarketNO79c76c−3.2%15.0%Polymarket ↗
- Will the Chicago Bears make the 2027 NFL Playoffs?polymarket · NO · entry 52cpolymarketNO52c54c+3.8%15.0%Polymarket ↗
- NFC Championship Winner — Chicagogemini · NO · entry 93cgeminiNO93c92c−1.1%15.0%Gemini Predictions ↗
- Will Chicago Bears win the 2027 NFL NFC Championship?polymarket · NO · entry 95cpolymarketNO95c94c−1.1%15.0%Polymarket ↗
- Will the season series between the Bears and Packers end in a tie during the 2026-27 NFL regular season?polymarket · NO · entry 51cpolymarketNO51c52c+3.0%15.0%Polymarket ↗
- Will Chicago Bears finish the 2026-27 NFL regular season with the most offensive touchdowns?polymarket · NO · entry 96cpolymarketNO96c96c−0.5%10.0%Polymarket ↗
Full basket ledger — settled outcomes, rebalance history, methodology →
The opposing claim
the same roster, read the other way — one close, two seriesThis index is one side of a pair. The same canonical roster, consolidated once, is read against the opposite case and published as its own governed series — so the counter-argument is a number on the board, not a caveat in the prose.
Read the opposite side →Holding both sides of this argument should cost nothing — the outcomes are exhaustive. It does not. The two levels sum to 2071.34 against a combined base of 2,000, and that gap is path, spread and friction rather than a view about the world. Gauges complement exactly; levels do not, because a level remembers the route it took.
Friction gauge Φ 2.53 · complement residual 0 — the gauge identity is checked at every close and published whether or not it holds.
Key statistics
- Previous
- —
- Band
- Elevated
- 10d Range
- 7285
- Percentile
- 10th
- 10d Change
- −10.8
- Volatility
- 3.4 pts/d
- Streak
- 2d down
- Markets
- 8
- Effective N
- 7.5
- Top Weight
- 15%
- Venues
- 7 P · 1 G
- Method
- v1
Indicative tape · 7 sessions
150 hourly readings since 2026-09-04 · not the governed closeINDICATIVEHourly readings that reprice the roster and frozen weights of the last governed close — only prices moved. Each one was computed and recorded at the timestamp it carries; nothing here is reconstructed from venue history. They carry no sentinel screen, enter no ledger and join no checksum chain, and a refused hour breaks the line rather than being drawn through. The daily WET Close is the official value.
Daily close
10d published · interactive10 published close(s) — 0–100 (Low support → High support). Drag to pan, scroll to zoom. One slot per published close, not one per day: dates on the axis are real, the spacing between them is not. 8 day(s) inside this window published no close and are not drawn at all. For the calendar-true spacing, read the chart below. Drawn as a line, not candles: a daily close carries no open, high or low, and a candle would assert an intraday range nobody observed.
History & 14-day projection
solid = 10d published · dashed = projected · shaded = 80% bandModel extrapolation of the published series (robust trend, 10 readings, slope -0.63/day, projection σ 5.2 pts/d widened for a 10-reading sample) — a benchmark projection, not a W.E.T. forecast.
Desk read
W.E.T. analysis — PremiumPremium
The desk's read on today's move
Why the index moved, in the desk's words — not just the arithmetic.
What moved today
attribution — PremiumPremium
Which markets moved the index, and by how much
Signed contribution per constituent, ranked.
Contribution by category
weight share of today's valueConstituents by weight
all 8 · what today's reading was computed over (2026-09-09) · the basket below holds a different setWCHI2 · at a glance
- What it is
- The same markets naming Chicago Bears, read on the down case of the threshold axis rather than the up case.
- High vs low
- Higher = the composition is pricing more support for this thesis. Lower = less. A reading of market prices, not a W.E.T. forecast.
- Who cares
- Anyone tracking how chicago-football is being priced across venues on a composition of at least 6 markets resolving inside 200 days.
Embed this score
always the latest published reading, dated · attribution built inPut the live WCHI2 reading on your own site, README, or newsletter.
Badge · works anywhere images do
Card · iframe for articles & dashboards
[](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/chicago-football-inside-six-months-inverse)<a href="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/chicago-football-inside-six-months-inverse"><img src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/chicago-football-inside-six-months-inverse/badge" alt="WCHI2 — WET Index Score" /></a><iframe src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/embed/indices/chicago-football-inside-six-months-inverse" width="340" height="170" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="WCHI2 — WET Index Score" loading="lazy"></iframe>Quote this index
free to cite with attribution + the as-of date“As of Sep 9, 2026, the W.E.T. Inverse Chicago Football Index 6mo (WCHI2) prints a WET Index Score of 72.1/100 (Elevated), per World Event Trading.”
Maintained by Corbin V King. A benchmark reading of market prices — data, not advice. See the disclaimer.