Readings may not describe today1 scheduled close did not landWhy →
1 behind

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

WMIN2

W.E.T. Inverse Minnesota Football Index 6mo

v1StandingExperimentalStanding
No reading published for 2026-09-09

The §2.6 ladder refused this print at rung 2. A refusal is publishable; a carried-forward level is not — so this index shows nothing today rather than yesterday’s number wearing today’s date.

Governed close level
no level published
Gauge
Divisor
what chains this level to the last
Closes
8
latest 2026-09-09
The opposing reading

minnesota-football-inside-six-months reads against this index’s . Same markets, opposite side.

Coverage
8 of 9 admitted markets priced1 unpricedκ 0.8500 · floor 0.95weights two-sided-depth · cap 15.0%
Withheld by the sentinel

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

What would make this reading wrong
  • The board stops listing markets that name Minnesota's football clubs inside this window: 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 Minnesota club in another sport starts sharing this one's published vocabulary, at which point the declared exclusions stop separating the two and the composition would silently become an all-sports index for this metro wearing a single-sport name.
How this reading was constructed (10)
  • weight coverage κ = 85.0% is below this index's floor κ_min = 95.0%
  • universe: resolved by universe/v1 over 11653 candidate canonical event(s) from the `tape-text` source (${m.title ?? ''} ${m.marketRef}), admitting 37. Rejections by reason: excluded-keyword 980, keyword-miss 10593, category-not-admitted 14, horizon-outside-window 29.
  • universe: the declared 60–200d horizon window (axis 8) was APPLIED and removed 29 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: 10593 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.
  • 980 canonical event(s) matched an excludeKeywords term and were not admitted. An exclusion is an ADMISSION decision and never a side one (§3.1): nothing here flips a member, it only declines to hold it.
  • eligibility: 28 of 37 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: below-min-volume 28. 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 NO force [undetermined:coverage], framing 0 of 9 members and holding 0 of them NO. The declared threshold axis frames 0 of 9 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 `threshold` 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 complement is available: the base printed nothing (insufficient_data). The identity needs two numbers, and an absent one is never treated as a zero.
  • 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 2026-08-30, 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 19c3a071bf7e83af · methodology 767642a1a40ecad5 · closed by standing/v1 · lifecycle experimental · class standing · no directional statement permitted from this print

No value publishedfor 2026-09-09§2.6 rung 2

weight coverage κ = 85.0% is below this index's floor κ_min = 95.0%

Last published reading: 74.22 on 2026-09-08. It is not carried forward.

The same markets naming Minnesota Vikings, read on the down case of the threshold axis rather than the up case.

Basket level · official print7 held · close 2026-09-10
996.38−0.36%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
996.38
Since inception
−0.36%
Cost to cross
Holdings marked
85.7% of 7
1 day
+0.17%
7 day
+0.03%
Markets held
7
Settled
0
Rebalanced out
0
Hit rate
Cash
50.2%
Inception
2026-08-30
Weighting
Equal notional
Marks
Two-sided mid
Days tracked
11

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 · 7 markets

held since 2026-08-30 · the reading above is computed over today's roster, which differs
MarketNowReturn
  • Will Minnesota Vikings win the 2027 NFL NFC Championship?polymarket · NO · entry 96c97c+0.4%
  • Will Minnesota Vikings win the 2026 NFC North?polymarket · NO · entry 84c84c+0.6%
  • Will the Minnesota Vikings make the 2027 NFL Playoffs?polymarket · NO · entry 62c61c−1.6%
  • Will the Packers win the season series against the Vikings during the 2026-27 NFL regular season?polymarket · NO · entry 70c71c+0.6%
  • NFC Championship Winner — Minnesotagemini · NO · entry 97c97c0.0%
  • NFC North Division Winner? — Minnesotagemini · NO · entry 83c80c−3.0%
  • Will the season series between the Bears and Vikings end in a tie during the 2026-27 NFL regular season?polymarket · NO · entry 53c9 sessions stale51c−2.9%

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

WMIN2 · at a glance

What it is
The same markets naming Minnesota Vikings, 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 minnesota-football 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 WMIN2 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
[![WMIN2 — WET Index Score](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/minnesota-football-inside-six-months-inverse/badge)](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/minnesota-football-inside-six-months-inverse)
HTML badge
<a href="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/minnesota-football-inside-six-months-inverse"><img src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/minnesota-football-inside-six-months-inverse/badge" alt="WMIN2 — WET Index Score" /></a>
Iframe card
<iframe src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/embed/indices/minnesota-football-inside-six-months-inverse" width="340" height="170" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="WMIN2 — WET Index Score" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Quote this index

free to cite with attribution + the as-of date
“The W.E.T. Inverse Minnesota Football Index 6mo (WMIN2) publishes a daily WET Index Score on a 0–100 scale, 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.