Readings may not describe today5 scheduled closes did not landWhy →
5 behind

5 scheduled closes did not land — the daily index publish was due at 10:37 UTC on 2026-09-23 and the newest print on file is still 2026-09-22. 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

WHIG2

W.E.T. Inverse Higher Tech Science Index 6mo

v1StandingExperimentalStanding
Governed close level
988.4295
base 1000 · chained · since 2026-08-14
Gauge
75.38
0–100 · rung 6
Divisor
7.6266e-4
what chains this level to the last
Closes
28
latest 2026-09-22
The opposing reading

higher-tech-science-inside-six-months reads 24.62 against this index’s 75.38. Same markets, opposite side.

Coverage
43 of 43 admitted markets pricedκ 1.0000 · floor 0.95weights two-sided-depth · cap 15.0%
Withheld by the sentinel

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

What would make this reading wrong
  • The "higher" 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.
  • The threshold axis stops framing this board. An axis that frames nothing leaves every member on the venue's own YES framing, which reads the board's listing convention rather than the thesis, and a level computed that way is not a reading of this claim.
How this reading was constructed (7)
  • universe: resolved by universe/v1 over 9403 candidate canonical event(s) from the `tape-text` source (${m.title ?? ''} ${m.marketRef}), admitting 44. Rejections by reason: keyword-miss 9335, category-not-admitted 24.
  • universe: the declared 60–200d 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: 9335 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 44 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 `threshold` framing axis (§3.3) was re-read on this tape and took force on the `up` case by rule `member-majority`, framing 41 of 43 members and holding 0 of them NO. 41 of 41 framed members carry the `up` case on the declared threshold axis, so this composition measures up; a member the axis frames the other way moves against that and is held NO. 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).
  • 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: 42 prior member(s), of which 1 could not be priced today and left through the DIVISOR (0 at a venue-reported resolution, 1 at their last governed mark, 0 unpriced on both dates). Price relative 0.993116075 against a gauge basis of 0.753837232; the divisor moved to absorb the composition and weight change, so what the level published is the price move and nothing else.
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 3a82c48d9663e63d · methodology 55da9606192c84aa · closed by standing/v1 · lifecycle experimental · class standing

75.38Stale · 5 closes behindElevated & climbing, volatile

As of Sep 22, 2026 · last moved Sep 22, 2026 · scale 0–100 (Low support → High support)

The same 17 tech-science markets carrying the "higher" axis across polymarket, read on the down case of the threshold axis rather than the up case.

Basket level · official print35 held · close 2026-09-25
1042.24+4.22%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
1042.24
Since inception
+4.22%
Cost to cross
—
Holdings marked
82.9% of 35
1 day
−0.65%
7 day
−2.62%
Markets held
35
Settled
0
Rebalanced out
0
Hit rate
—
Cash
48.0%
Inception
2026-08-18
Weighting
Equal notional
Marks
Two-sided mid
Days tracked
33

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 · 35 markets

held since 2026-08-18 · the reading above is computed over today's roster, which differs
MarketNowReturn
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 80% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 92c93c+0.6%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 70% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 95c91c−4.2%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 75% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 95c95c0.0%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 55% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 14c8c−37.4%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 70% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 92c93c+1.6%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Google Gemini model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 70% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 92c96c+4.4%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Moonshot Kimi model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 95c90c−4.6%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Moonshot Kimi model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 45% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 6c29c+421.8%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 91c72c−21.4%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 70% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 84c81c−4.2%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 85c74c−13.0%↗
  • Will the next Grok model (4.6+) debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 45% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 88c11 sessions stale97c+10.0%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 50% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 30c19c−37.3%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 74c61c−17.0%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 75% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 92c88c−4.4%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Google Gemini model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 50% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 27c9c−68.8%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 55% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 46c14c−70.3%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 90% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 94c95c+0.5%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 66c53c−19.8%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a SpaceXAI Grok model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 45% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 30c33c+8.8%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Moonshot Kimi model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 50% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 63c70c+11.2%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Meta model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 70% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 94c92c−2.0%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Meta model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 55% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 56c73c+29.5%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 45% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 13c6c−56.0%↗
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 40% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 9c5c−44.4%↗
  • Will the next Grok model (4.6+) debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 50% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 95c11 sessions stale99c+4.8%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 37c50c+37.0%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Meta model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 87c93c+7.5%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Moonshot Kimi model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 89c90c+0.6%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 33c49c+50.8%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by a SpaceXAI Grok model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 85c93c+9.5%↗
  • Will OpenAI’s Astra model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 98c13 sessions stale99c+1.5%↗
  • Will OpenAI’s Astra model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 40% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 6c13 sessions stale1c−81.8%↗
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 50% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 20c14 sessions stale1c−95.0%↗
  • Will the next Grok model (4.6+) debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 35% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 7c11 sessions stale1c−86.5%↗

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

The opposing claim

the same roster, read the other way — one close, two series

This 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 →
Pair drift
-11.28index points, both sides combined

Holding both sides of this argument should cost nothing — the outcomes are exhaustive. It does not. The two levels sum to 1988.72 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 1.47 · complement residual 0 — the gauge identity is checked at every close and published whether or not it holds.

Key statistics

Previous
—
Band
Elevated
28d Range
4976
Percentile
96th
8d Change
+3.6
Volatility
5.0 pts/d
Streak
—
Markets
43
Effective N
21.1
Top Weight
11%
Venues
43 P
Method
v1

Indicative tape · 7 sessions

133 hourly readings since 2026-09-22 · not the governed close
72.074.076.078.080.009-22 00:0009-25 05:0009-28 09:00
Latest
78.76
Since 2026-09-22
+6.56
Range
71.8–80.7
Readings
124+9 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

28d published · interactive

28 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. 12 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 = 28d published · dashed = projected · shaded = 80% band
5060708090100now77
Projected 14d
76.80
Change
+1.40
80% band
48–100
Confidence
low

Model extrapolation of the published series (robust trend, 28 readings, slope +0.21/day, projection σ 6.0 pts/d widened for a 28-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-science96% · 41financials5% · 2

Constituents by weight

all 43 · what today's reading was computed over (2026-09-22) · the basket below holds a different set
Show the remaining 23 holdings

WHIG2 · at a glance

What it is
The same 17 tech-science markets carrying the "higher" axis across polymarket, 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 higher 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 WHIG2 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
[![WHIG2 — WET Index Score](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/higher-tech-science-inside-six-months-inverse/badge)](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/higher-tech-science-inside-six-months-inverse)
HTML badge
<a href="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/higher-tech-science-inside-six-months-inverse"><img src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/higher-tech-science-inside-six-months-inverse/badge" alt="WHIG2 — WET Index Score" /></a>
Iframe card
<iframe src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/embed/indices/higher-tech-science-inside-six-months-inverse" width="340" height="170" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="WHIG2 — WET Index Score" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Quote this index

free to cite with attribution + the as-of date
“As of Sep 22, 2026, the W.E.T. Inverse Higher Tech Science Index 6mo (WHIG2) prints a WET Index Score of 75.4/100 (Elevated), 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.