WHIG2

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

v1StandingExperimentalStanding
Governed close level
960.2365
base 1000 · chained · since 2026-08-14
Gauge
59.22
0–100 · rung 6
Divisor
6.1674e-4
what chains this level to the last
Closes
17
latest 2026-09-08
The opposing reading

higher-tech-science-inside-six-months reads 40.78 against this index’s 59.22. Same markets, opposite side.

Coverage
48 of 48 admitted markets pricedκ 1.0000 · floor 0.95weights two-sided-depth · cap 15.0%
Withheld by the sentinel

46 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 13681 candidate canonical event(s) from the `tape-text` source (${m.title ?? ''} ${m.marketRef}), admitting 51. Rejections by reason: keyword-miss 13603, category-not-admitted 27.
  • 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: 13603 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: 3 of 51 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 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 force on the `up` case by rule `member-majority`, framing 48 of 48 members and holding 0 of them NO. 48 of 48 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: 48 prior member(s), of which 2 could not be priced today and left through the DIVISOR (0 at a venue-reported resolution, 2 at their last governed mark, 0 unpriced on both dates). Price relative 0.984243934 against a gauge basis of 0.592217933; 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

59.221.60 (2.63%)Moderate & cooling, volatile

As of Sep 8, 2026 · last moved Sep 8, 2026 · scale 0–100 (Low supportHigh 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 2026-09-08
1012.57+1.26%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
1012.57
Since inception
+1.26%
Cost to cross
Holdings marked
100.0% of 35
1 day
−0.74%
7 day
+3.09%
Markets held
35
Settled
0
Rebalanced out
0
Hit rate
Cash
49.4%
Inception
2026-08-18
Weighting
Equal notional
Marks
Two-sided mid
Days tracked
18

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+1.0%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 70% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 95c90c−5.3%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 75% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 95c96c+0.5%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 55% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 14c16c+18.9%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 70% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 92c94c+2.2%
  • 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+4.5%
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Moonshot Kimi model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 95c92c−3.1%
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Moonshot Kimi model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 45% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 6c13c+127.3%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 91c79c−13.2%
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 70% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 84c83c−1.8%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 85c78c−7.7%
  • Will the next Grok model (4.6+) debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 45% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 88c56c−35.8%
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 50% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 30c28c−6.8%
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 74c67c−9.5%
  • 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 27c20c−27.4%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 55% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 46c28c−39.6%
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 90% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 94c95c+1.2%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 66c61c−7.6%
  • Will the highest score achieved by a SpaceXAI Grok model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 45% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 30c19c−37.0%
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Moonshot Kimi model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 50% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 63c51c−19.2%
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Meta model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 70% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 94c93c−1.6%
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Meta model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 55% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 56c59c+4.5%
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 45% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 13c26c+108.0%
  • Will the next Google Gemini Pro model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 40% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 9c12c+27.8%
  • Will the next Grok model (4.6+) debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 50% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 95c91c−3.4%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an Anthropic Claude model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 37c46c+26.0%
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Meta model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 65% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 87c88c+1.2%
  • Will the highest score achieved by a Moonshot Kimi model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 89c86c−3.4%
  • Will the highest score achieved on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 33c34c+3.1%
  • Will the highest score achieved by a SpaceXAI Grok model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 85c76c−10.7%
  • Will OpenAI’s Astra model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 60% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 98c84c−14.1%
  • Will OpenAI’s Astra model debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 40% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 6c2c−60.9%
  • Will the highest score achieved by an OpenAI model on Humanity’s Last Exam in 2026 be 50% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 20c6c−70.3%
  • Will the next Grok model (4.6+) debut with a Humanity’s Last Exam score of 35% or higher?polymarket · NO · entry 7c8c+4.1%

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
+16.68index 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 2016.68 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 1.89 · complement residual 0 — the gauge identity is checked at every close and published whether or not it holds.

Key statistics

Previous
60.83
Band
Moderate
17d Range
4973
Percentile
12th
9d Change
2.0
Volatility
5.2 pts/d
Streak
Markets
48
Effective N
27.0
Top Weight
9%
Venues
48 P
Method
v1

Indicative tape · 6 sessions

124 hourly readings since 2026-09-03 · not the governed close
46.048.050.052.054.056.058.060.062.064.009-03 16:0009-06 08:0009-09 00:00
Latest
59.36
Since 2026-09-03
0.15
Range
47.563.0
Readings
91+33 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

17d published · interactive

17 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 = 17d published · dashed = projected · shaded = 80% band
20406080now56
Projected 14d
56.30
Change
2.90
80% band
2489
Confidence
low

Model extrapolation of the published series (robust trend, 17 readings, slope -0.42/day, projection σ 6.8 pts/d widened for a 17-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% · 48

Constituents by weight

all 48 · what today's reading was computed over (2026-09-08) · the basket below holds a different set
Show the remaining 28 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 · works anywhere images do

WET Index Score badge preview

Card · iframe for articles & dashboards

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 8, 2026, the W.E.T. Inverse Higher Tech Science Index 6mo (WHIG2) prints a WET Index Score of 59.2/100 (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.