Readings may not describe today1 scheduled close did not landWhy →
1 behind

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

WCODE

W.E.T. Code Arena Tech Science Index 2mo

v1StandingExperimentalMonthly
Governed close level
no level published
Gauge
43.47
0–100 · rung 6
Divisor
what chains this level to the last
Closes
18
latest 2026-09-09
Coverage
30 of 30 admitted markets pricedκ 1.0000 · floor 0.95weights two-sided-depth · cap 15.0%
Withheld by the sentinel

45 input(s) were quarantined by sentinel/v1 before this close and are excluded from the reading above.

What would make this reading wrong
  • The "code arena" axis stops appearing in tech-science titles: 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 published axis starts framing this board. No axis frames a majority of it today (polarity frames 0 of 6, severity frames 0 of 6, threshold frames 0 of 6), and that measurement is what put this worldview on a side-symmetric lens; a composition whose sides become readable is a different index and belongs to a successor spec rather than to an edit of this one.
How this reading was constructed (7)
  • universe: resolved by universe/v1 over 11653 candidate canonical event(s) from the `tape-text` source (${m.title ?? ''} ${m.marketRef}), admitting 96. Rejections by reason: keyword-miss 11557.
  • universe: the declared 17–60d horizon window (axis 8) was APPLIED and removed 0 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: 11557 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.
  • eligibility: 66 of 96 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: price-below-floor 65, spread-too-wide 1. 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 `polarity` framing axis (§3.3) was re-read on this tape and took NO force [undetermined:coverage], framing 0 of 30 members and holding 0 of them NO. The declared polarity axis frames 0 of 30 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 `polarity` 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.
Why there are two levels on this page

The governed close level above is divisor-chained: it tracks how the desk’s reading of this perspective has moved since 2026-08-14, 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 114bf16b406af445 · methodology 1d602f6c6593959e · closed by standing/v1 · lifecycle experimental · class standing

43.47Stale · 1 close behindModerate & steady, volatile

As of Sep 9, 2026 · last moved Sep 9, 2026 · scale 0–100 (Low supportHigh support)

30 tech-science markets carrying the "code arena" axis across polymarket, every one resolving inside two months, tracked as one composition.

Basket level · official print21 held · close 2026-09-10
808.13−19.19%since inception · base 1000

hypothetical · mid marks · before fees, spread and slippage

Basket performance

hypothetical · mid marks · before fees, spread and slippage
Basket total return
808.13
Since inception
−19.19%
Cost to cross
Holdings marked
100.0% of 21
1 day
−2.05%
7 day
−0.61%
Markets held
21
Settled
0
Rebalanced out
0
Hit rate
Cash
61.9%
Inception
2026-08-18
Weighting
Equal notional
Marks
Two-sided mid
Days tracked
20

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 · 21 markets

held since 2026-08-18 · the reading above is computed over today's roster, which differs
MarketNowReturn
  • Will Moonshot be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 46c2c−94.9%
  • Will OpenAI be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 13c17c+35.6%
  • Will Anthropic be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c4c−15.7%
  • Will ByteDance be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 2c1c−58.3%
  • Will Meta have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c1c−72.2%
  • Will Moonshot be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 42c26c−38.6%
  • Will ByteDance be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 2c1c−56.5%
  • Will Z.ai have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c1c−81.5%
  • Will Thinky be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c1c−61.5%
  • Will Alibaba be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 24c3c−88.3%
  • Will Mistral be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c1c−63.0%
  • Will Anthropic have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 58c16c−72.4%
  • Will Moonshot have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c1c−75.6%
  • Will OpenAI have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 17c83c+404.2%
  • Will Alibaba be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 32c27c−17.2%
  • Will Google be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 10c1c−90.0%
  • Will Poolside be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 2c1c−56.5%
  • Will Meta be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c1c−75.0%
  • Will SpaceXAI have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c1c−76.2%
  • Will Z.ai be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c2c−57.4%
  • Will Alibaba have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c1c−76.7%

Full basket ledger — settled outcomes, rebalance history, methodology →

Key statistics

Previous
Band
Moderate
18d Range
3664
Percentile
28th
10d Change
+0.6
Volatility
8.0 pts/d
Streak
Markets
30
Effective N
17.1
Top Weight
15%
Venues
30 P
Method
v1

Indicative tape · 7 sessions

150 hourly readings since 2026-09-04 · not the governed close
40.045.050.055.060.065.009-04 00:0009-07 06:0009-10 12:00
Latest
41.75
Since 2026-09-04
15.86
Range
39.866.8
Readings
100+50 refused

INDICATIVEHourly 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

18d published · interactive

18 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. 9 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 = 18d published · dashed = projected · no band published
020406080100now45
Projected 14d
45.00
Change
+1.50
80% band
not published — the 14d dispersion is wider than the 0–100 scale
Confidence
low

Model extrapolation of the published series (robust trend, 18 readings, slope +0.22/day, projection σ 10.4 pts/d widened for a 18-reading sample) — a benchmark projection, not a W.E.T. forecast.

Desk read

W.E.T. analysis — Premium
🔒

Premium

The desk's read on today's move

Why the index moved, in the desk's words — not just the arithmetic.

Checking access…

What moved today

attribution — Premium
🔒

Premium

Which markets moved the index, and by how much

Signed contribution per constituent, ranked.

Checking access…

Contribution by category

weight share of today's value
tech-science100% · 30

Constituents by weight

all 30 · what today's reading was computed over (2026-09-09) · the basket below holds a different set
Show the remaining 10 holdings

Where these markets are covered

2 of 30 constituents have a W.E.T. page

The odds pages covering the individual contracts this index reads. They are the evidence underneath the reading, not readings themselves.

WCODE · at a glance

What it is
30 tech-science markets carrying the "code arena" axis across polymarket, every one resolving inside two months, tracked as one composition.
High vs low
Higher = the markets are more torn — prices across the composition sit closer to a coin flip. Lower = more decided, in EITHER direction: a basket priced at 5% and one priced at 95% both read low. A reading of market prices, not a W.E.T. forecast.
Who cares
Anyone tracking how code arena is being priced across venues on a composition of at least 6 markets resolving inside 60 days.

Embed this score

always the latest published reading, dated · attribution built in

Put the live WCODE reading on your own site, README, or newsletter.

Badge · works anywhere images do

WET Index Score badge preview

Card · iframe for articles & dashboards

Markdown badge
[![WCODE — WET Index Score](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months/badge)](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months)
HTML badge
<a href="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months"><img src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months/badge" alt="WCODE — WET Index Score" /></a>
Iframe card
<iframe src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/embed/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months" width="340" height="170" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="WCODE — 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. Code Arena Tech Science Index 2mo (WCODE) prints a WET Index Score of 43.5/100 (Moderate), per World Event Trading.”

Full methodology →JSONLive intradayDaily report

Maintained by Corbin V King. A benchmark reading of market prices — data, not advice. See the disclaimer.