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

WELEC

W.E.T. Election Politics Index 6mo

v1StandingExperimentalStanding
Governed close level
no level published
Gauge
46.45
0–100 · rung 6
Divisor
what chains this level to the last
Closes
18
latest 2026-09-09
Coverage
36 of 36 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 "election" axis stops appearing in politics 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 19, severity frames 0 of 19, threshold frames 1 of 19), 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 132. Rejections by reason: keyword-miss 10637, category-not-admitted 450, horizon-outside-window 434.
  • universe: the declared 60–200d horizon window (axis 8) was APPLIED and removed 434 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: 10637 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: 96 of 132 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 93, spread-too-wide 3. 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 16 of 36 members and holding 0 of them NO. The declared threshold axis frames 16 of 36 members (44%), 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.
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 6ba35a11161053cf · methodology 5aaed9936535f839 · closed by standing/v1 · lifecycle experimental · class standing

46.45Stale · 1 close behindModerate & climbing, volatile

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

36 politics markets carrying the "election" axis across polymarket, every one resolving inside six months, tracked as one composition.

Basket level · official print13 held · close 2026-09-10
957.86−4.21%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
957.86
Since inception
−4.21%
Cost to cross
Holdings marked
92.3% of 13
1 day
+1.00%
7 day
+0.21%
Markets held
13
Settled
0
Rebalanced out
0
Hit rate
Cash
52.2%
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 · 13 markets

held since 2026-08-18 · the reading above is computed over today's roster, which differs
MarketNowReturn
  • Israel election: will Likud lose seats?polymarket · YES · entry 87c92c+6.4%
  • Another Canada election called by December 31, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 6c7c+16.7%
  • Ukraine election held by December 31, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 6c5c−18.2%
  • Ukraine election called by December 31, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 13c10c−24.0%
  • Will Trump endorse Yashar in the 2026 Israeli Election?polymarket · YES · entry 2c1c−58.3%
  • Will Israel election happen as scheduled?polymarket · YES · entry 90c91c+1.1%
  • French election called by December 31, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 6c8c+32.5%
  • Will Trump nationalize elections?polymarket · YES · entry 11c8c−31.8%
  • Trump declares election interference national emergency by December 31?polymarket · YES · entry 22c17c−22.7%
  • Will Trump not endorse a Party in the 2026 Israeli Election?polymarket · YES · entry 54c71c+31.5%
  • Will Trump endorse Likud in the 2026 Israeli Election?polymarket · YES · entry 46c30c−35.9%
  • Israeli election results in a hung parliament?polymarket · YES · entry 33c37c+13.8%
  • Will a US court rule that the 2020 election was fraudulent?polymarket · YES · entry 9c10c+17.6%

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

Key statistics

Previous
Band
Moderate
18d Range
3855
Percentile
83th
10d Change
+7.0
Volatility
3.4 pts/d
Streak
3d up
Markets
36
Effective N
12.8
Top Weight
15%
Venues
36 P
Method
v1

Indicative tape · 7 sessions

150 hourly readings since 2026-09-04 · not the governed close
36.038.040.042.044.046.048.009-04 00:0009-07 06:0009-10 12:00
Latest
47.33
Since 2026-09-04
+8.10
Range
36.748.5
Readings
125+25 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 · shaded = 80% band
203040506070now45
Projected 14d
44.70
Change
1.80
80% band
2466
Confidence
low

Model extrapolation of the published series (robust trend, 18 readings, slope -0.25/day, projection σ 4.4 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
politics86% · 34unclassified14% · 2

Constituents by weight

all 36 · what today's reading was computed over (2026-09-09) · the basket below holds a different set
Show the remaining 16 holdings

WELEC · at a glance

What it is
36 politics markets carrying the "election" axis across polymarket, every one resolving inside six 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 election 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 in

Put the live WELEC 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
[![WELEC — WET Index Score](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/election-politics-inside-six-months/badge)](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/election-politics-inside-six-months)
HTML badge
<a href="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/election-politics-inside-six-months"><img src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/election-politics-inside-six-months/badge" alt="WELEC — WET Index Score" /></a>
Iframe card
<iframe src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/embed/indices/election-politics-inside-six-months" width="340" height="170" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="WELEC — 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. Election Politics Index 6mo (WELEC) prints a WET Index Score of 46.5/100 (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.