W.E.T. Google Tech Science Index 2mo
v1StandingExperimentalMonthly7 input(s) were quarantined by sentinel/v1 before this close and are excluded from the reading above.
- The "google" 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 1 of 16, severity frames 1 of 16, threshold frames 0 of 16), 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 16530 candidate canonical event(s) from the `tape-text` source (
${m.title ?? ''}${m.marketRef}), admitting 33. Rejections by reason: keyword-miss 16076, category-not-admitted 406, horizon-outside-window 15. - universe: the declared 17–60d horizon window (axis 8) was APPLIED and removed 15 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: 16076 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: 1 of 33 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: 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 32 members and holding 0 of them NO. The declared polarity axis frames 0 of 32 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.
The governed close level above is divisor-chained: it tracks how the desk’s reading of this perspective has moved since 2026-09-28, 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 55f061367194e200 · methodology 862780e13f15f69f · closed by standing/v1 · lifecycle experimental · class standing
As of Nov 14, 2026 · last moved Nov 14, 2026 · scale 0–100 (Low support → High support)
32 tech-science markets carrying the "google" axis across polymarket, every one resolving inside two months, tracked as one composition.
No level published — the replayed series does not reconcile with this book. The replay ends +100.4% from base while the book's own closed and open positions give +200.6% — a 100-point disagreement. This book's units were resized by a rebalance without a new open date, so its day-one sizing is not recoverable from anything on disk and the history cannot be replayed honestly. A refusal is publishable; a wrong level is not.
hypothetical · mid marks · before fees, spread and slippage
Basket performance
hypothetical · mid marks · before fees, spread and slippage- Basket total return
- —
- Since inception
- —
- Cost to cross
- —
- Holdings marked
- 0.0% of 22
- 1 day
- —
- 7 day
- —
- Markets held
- 22
- Settled
- 0
- Rebalanced out
- 0
- Hit rate
- —
- Cash
- —
- Inception
- 2026-09-28
- Weighting
- Equal notional
- Marks
- Two-sided mid
- Days tracked
- 0
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 · 22 markets
held since 2026-09-28 · the reading above is computed over today's roster, which differs- Will Google have the best AI model at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 8c7 sessions stalepolymarketYES8c99c+1122.2%15.0%Polymarket ↗
- Will there be no next Google Gemini Pro model release by November 1, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 36c7 sessions stalepolymarketYES36c98c+177.3%15.0%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released between October 19 and October 25, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 13c15 sessions stalepolymarketYES13c9c−30.7%11.0%Polymarket ↗
- Will there be no next Google Gemini Pro model release by October 31, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 36c12 sessions stalepolymarketYES36c97c+169.4%9.1%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released by October 31, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 69c12 sessions stalepolymarketYES69c2c−96.5%7.2%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released between October 26 and November 1, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 11c12 sessions stalepolymarketYES11c1c−87.1%6.1%Polymarket ↗
- Google matches Anthropic's evaluator commitment by October 31?polymarket · YES · entry 27c12 sessions stalepolymarketYES27c11c−57.7%4.9%Polymarket ↗
- Will Google have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 6c12 sessions stalepolymarketYES6c2c−67.9%3.9%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released by October 9, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 10c18 sessions stalepolymarketYES10c4c−62.5%3.8%Polymarket ↗
- Will Google have the #1 AI model at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 14c12 sessions stalepolymarketYES14c83c+484.9%3.8%Polymarket ↗
- Will Google be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c15 sessions stalepolymarketYES3c3c+1.7%3.4%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released between October 12 and October 18, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 34c15 sessions stalepolymarketYES34c3c−90.6%2.7%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released on October 26, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 9c15 sessions stalepolymarketYES9c1c−88.6%2.6%Polymarket ↗
- Will Google have the best AI model on LiveBench (Mathematics) at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c12 sessions stalepolymarketYES4c3c−16.2%2.3%Polymarket ↗
- Will Google be the second-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 39c15 sessions stalepolymarketYES39c49c+25.6%1.6%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released on October 21, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c15 sessions stalepolymarketYES5c2c−56.5%1.5%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released on October 30, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c12 sessions stalepolymarketYES3c1c−61.5%1.5%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released on October 29, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c13 sessions stalepolymarketYES4c1c−75.6%1.4%Polymarket ↗
- Will Google have the best Math AI model at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 20c12 sessions stalepolymarketYES20c69c+238.7%1.3%Polymarket ↗
- Will Google be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 30c15 sessions stalepolymarketYES30c14c−54.2%1.1%Polymarket ↗
- Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released by October 15, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 45c15 sessions stalepolymarketYES45c9c−79.8%0.7%Polymarket ↗
- Will Google be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c15 sessions stalepolymarketYES4c40c+846.4%0.1%Polymarket ↗
Full basket ledger — settled outcomes, rebalance history, methodology →
Key statistics
- Previous
- 55.07
- Band
- Moderate
- 21d Range
- 4879
- Percentile
- 5th
- 9d Change
- −7.8
- Volatility
- 7.1 pts/d
- Streak
- 6d down
- Markets
- 32
- Effective N
- 14.6
- Top Weight
- 15%
- Venues
- 32 P
- Method
- v1
Indicative tape · 7 sessions
97 hourly readings since 2026-10-22 · 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
21d published · interactive21 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. 27 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 = 21d published · dashed = projected · shaded = 80% bandModel extrapolation of the published series (robust trend, 21 readings, slope -0.15/day, projection σ 9.0 pts/d widened for a 21-reading sample) — a benchmark projection, not a W.E.T. forecast.
Desk read
W.E.T. analysis — InsidersInsiders
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 — InsidersInsiders
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 32 · what today's reading was computed over (2026-11-14) · the basket below holds a different setShow the remaining 12 holdingsHide the remaining 12 holdings
Where these markets are covered
2 of 32 constituents have a W.E.T. pageThe odds pages covering the individual contracts this index reads. They are the evidence underneath the reading, not readings themselves.
WGOO2 · at a glance
- What it is
- 32 tech-science markets carrying the "google" 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 google 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 inPut the live WGOO2 reading on your own site, README, or newsletter.
Badge For articles, profiles & READMEs
The index. Ready to share. Actual embed
[](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/google-tech-science-inside-two-months)<a href="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/google-tech-science-inside-two-months"><img src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/google-tech-science-inside-two-months/badge" alt="WGOO2 — WET Index Score" /></a><iframe src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/embed/indices/google-tech-science-inside-two-months" width="340" height="170" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="WGOO2 — WET Index Score" loading="lazy"></iframe>Quote this index
free to cite with attribution + the as-of date“As of Nov 14, 2026, the W.E.T. Google Tech Science Index 2mo (WGOO2) prints a WET Index Score of 47.7/100 (Moderate), per World Event Trading.”
Maintained by Corbin V King. A benchmark reading of market prices — data, not advice. See the disclaimer.