WMATH

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

v1StandingExperimentalMonthly
Governed close level
—
no level published
Gauge
36.61
0–100 · rung 6
Divisor
—
what chains this level to the last
Closes
53
latest 2026-11-14
Coverage
27 of 27 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 "math" 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 0 of 6, severity frames 0 of 6, threshold frames 0 of 6), 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 65. Rejections by reason: keyword-miss 16382, category-not-admitted 11, horizon-outside-window 72.
  • universe: the declared 17–60d horizon window (axis 8) was APPLIED and removed 72 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: 16382 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: 38 of 65 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: price-below-floor 38. 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 27 members and holding 0 of them NO. The declared polarity axis frames 0 of 27 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 2026-08-14, 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 89aabbcfcc5a96d1 · methodology c37cea08d1fcb396 · closed by standing/v1 · lifecycle experimental · class standing

36.61−5.90 (−13.89%)Low & climbing, volatile

As of Nov 14, 2026 · last moved Nov 14, 2026 · scale 0–100 (Low support → High support)

27 tech-science markets carrying the "math" axis across polymarket, every one resolving inside two months, tracked as one composition.

No level published for this basket

No return published — not one of this basket's 20 open holdings carried a mark on 2026-11-14. The level would read exactly 1000 and the return exactly 0.00%, which is what an unmoved basket and an unobserved one look like from outside. They are not the same thing, so this one says which it is.

Basket level · official print20 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 20
1 day
—
7 day
—
Markets held
20
Settled
0
Rebalanced out
0
Hit rate
—
Cash
45.5%
Inception
2026-09-28
Weighting
Equal notional
Marks
Two-sided mid
Days tracked
22

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 · 20 markets

held since 2026-09-28 · the reading above is computed over today's roster, which differs
MarketNowReturn
  • Will OpenAI have the best AI model on LiveBench (Mathematics) at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 26c12 sessions stale5c−81.0%↗
  • Will Meituan be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c15 sessions stale4c+2.5%↗
  • Will Alibaba be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 16c15 sessions stale15c−3.2%↗
  • 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 Anthropic have the best Math AI model at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 70c12 sessions stale28c−60.0%↗
  • Will Meta be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 6c15 sessions stale40c+518.0%↗
  • Will OpenAI have the best Math AI model at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c12 sessions stale3c+6.0%↗
  • Will Nvidia be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c15 sessions stale3c−30.4%↗
  • Will Google be the second-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 39c15 sessions stale49c+25.6%↗
  • Will OpenAI be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c12 sessions stale3c−30.0%↗
  • Will Google have the best Math AI model at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 20c12 sessions stale69c+238.7%↗
  • Will Anthropic be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c12 sessions stale1c−60.0%↗
  • Will Anthropic have the best AI model on LiveBench (Mathematics) at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 70c12 sessions stale86c+23.0%↗
  • Will Google be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 30c15 sessions stale14c−54.2%↗
  • Will OpenAI be the second-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c12 sessions stale5c+17.5%↗
  • Will Anthropic be the second-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 28c12 sessions stale71c+158.2%↗
  • Will Moonshot be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c15 sessions stale2c−39.4%↗
  • Will Z.ai be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 32c15 sessions stale16c−49.2%↗
  • Will Xiaomi be the third-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 6c15 sessions stale5c−11.0%↗
  • Will Alibaba be the second-best Math AI lab at the end of October 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 7c15 sessions stale2c−77.6%↗

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

Key statistics

Previous
42.49
Band
Low
20d Range
3057
Percentile
20th
9d Change
−3.3
Volatility
7.5 pts/d
Streak
—
Markets
27
Effective N
16.5
Top Weight
15%
Venues
27 P
Method
v1

Indicative tape · 6 sessions

97 hourly readings since 2026-10-22 · not the governed close
32.034.036.038.040.042.044.046.048.010-22 00:0011-03 03:0011-15 05:00
Latest
35.04
Since 2026-10-22
−12.14
Range
33.0–47.8
Readings
54+43 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

20d published · interactive

20 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. 28 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 = 20d published · dashed = projected · shaded = 80% band
020406080now34
Projected 14d
34.30
Change
−2.30
80% band
0–80
Confidence
low

Model extrapolation of the published series (robust trend, 20 readings, slope -0.34/day, projection σ 9.5 pts/d widened for a 20-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
tech-science100% · 27

Constituents by weight

all 27 · what today's reading was computed over (2026-11-14) · the basket below holds a different set
Show the remaining 7 holdings

WMATH · at a glance

What it is
27 tech-science markets carrying the "math" 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 math 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 WMATH 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
[![WMATH — WET Index Score](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/math-tech-science-inside-two-months/badge)](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/math-tech-science-inside-two-months)
HTML badge
<a href="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/math-tech-science-inside-two-months"><img src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/math-tech-science-inside-two-months/badge" alt="WMATH — WET Index Score" /></a>
Iframe card
<iframe src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/embed/indices/math-tech-science-inside-two-months" width="340" height="170" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="WMATH — 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. Math Tech Science Index 2mo (WMATH) prints a WET Index Score of 36.6/100 (Low), 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.