WGOO2

W.E.T. Google Tech Science Index 2mo

v1StandingExperimentalMonthly
Governed close level
—
no level published
Gauge
47.73
0–100 · rung 6
Divisor
—
what chains this level to the last
Closes
22
latest 2026-11-14
Coverage
32 of 32 admitted markets pricedκ 1.0000 · floor 0.95weights two-sided-depth · cap 15.0%
Withheld by the sentinel

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

What would make this reading wrong
  • 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.
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 2026-09-28, 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

47.73−7.30 (−13.26%)Moderate & cooling, volatile

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 for this basket

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.

Basket level · official print22 held · close 2026-11-14
No level publishedbase 1000

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
MarketNowReturn
  • Will Google have the best AI model at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 8c7 sessions stale99c+1122.2%↗
  • Will there be no next Google Gemini Pro model release by November 1, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 36c7 sessions stale98c+177.3%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released between October 19 and October 25, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 13c15 sessions stale9c−30.7%↗
  • Will there be no next Google Gemini Pro model release by October 31, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 36c12 sessions stale97c+169.4%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released by October 31, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 69c12 sessions stale2c−96.5%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released between October 26 and November 1, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 11c12 sessions stale1c−87.1%↗
  • Google matches Anthropic's evaluator commitment by October 31?polymarket · YES · entry 27c12 sessions stale11c−57.7%↗
  • Will Google have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 6c12 sessions stale2c−67.9%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released by October 9, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 10c18 sessions stale4c−62.5%↗
  • Will Google have the #1 AI model at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 14c12 sessions stale83c+484.9%↗
  • Will Google be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c15 sessions stale3c+1.7%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released between October 12 and October 18, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 34c15 sessions stale3c−90.6%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released on October 26, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 9c15 sessions stale1c−88.6%↗
  • Will Google have the best AI model on LiveBench (Mathematics) at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c12 sessions stale3c−16.2%↗
  • Will Google be the second-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 39c15 sessions stale49c+25.6%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released on October 21, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c15 sessions stale2c−56.5%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released on October 30, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c12 sessions stale1c−61.5%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released on October 29, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c13 sessions stale1c−75.6%↗
  • Will Google have the best Math AI model at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 20c12 sessions stale69c+238.7%↗
  • Will Google be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 30c15 sessions stale14c−54.2%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model be released by October 15, 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 45c15 sessions stale9c−79.8%↗
  • Will Google be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c15 sessions stale40c+846.4%↗

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 close
40.045.050.055.060.065.070.010-22 00:0011-03 03:0011-15 05:00
Latest
47.39
Since 2026-10-22
−19.78
Range
41.4–67.9
Readings
94+3 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

21d published · interactive

21 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% band
020406080100now47
Projected 14d
46.70
Change
−1.00
80% band
4–90
Confidence
low

Model 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 — Insiders
🔒

Insiders

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 — Insiders
🔒

Insiders

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
unclassified100% · 32

Constituents by weight

all 32 · what today's reading was computed over (2026-11-14) · the basket below holds a different set

Where these markets are covered

2 of 32 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.

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 in

Put the live WGOO2 reading on your own site, README, or newsletter.

Badge For articles, profiles & READMEs

WET Index Score badge preview

The index. Ready to share. Actual embed

Markdown badge
[![WGOO2 — WET Index Score](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/google-tech-science-inside-two-months/badge)](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/google-tech-science-inside-two-months)
HTML badge
<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 card
<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.”

Full methodology →JSONLive intradayDaily report

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