CONTRACT ANALYSIS
Check contract meaning before comparing prediction-market prices.
A shared event name does not establish a shared settlement condition. Compare outcomes, thresholds, deadlines, time zones, resolution sources, exceptions and review state before treating two contracts as comparable.
Start with the question each contract settles
A useful comparison states the exact claim that makes each outcome true, then records what remains unknown.
Read the affirmative and negative outcomes as written. Identify the threshold, measured unit, observation window, deadline, time zone, resolution source, cancellation treatment and rules version. Similar wording is a discovery clue; it is not a verified relationship.
When a term is absent or ambiguous, retain it as unknown and keep the relationship in review. A cautious “not comparable yet” result is more useful than silently filling a gap with an assumption.
Illustrative comparison: announcement versus ratification
The two fictional contracts concern one agreement, but they ask different questions and use different cutoffs.
This synthetic teaching example is not a listed market, source capture, venue rule or empirical observation. The relationship is unresolved because the propositions, deadlines and source requirements differ.
| Term to compare | Synthetic contract A | Synthetic contract B | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition | Will the Meridian Council ratify the Northwind agreement? | Will the Meridian Council announce the Northwind agreement? | Ratification and announcement are different events. |
| Outcome condition | YES only if a final ratification vote passes. | YES if an announcement is made, even before a vote. | The affirmative outcomes can diverge. |
| Deadline and time zone | 30 November 2026, 23:59 UTC. | 30 November 2026, 18:00 America/New_York. | These cutoffs are not the same instant. |
| Resolution source | A hypothetical council resolution record. | A hypothetical public announcement feed. | Different source rules can produce different settlements. |
| Exceptions and review | No cancellation clause supplied in this teaching example. | No cancellation clause supplied in this teaching example. | Missing terms stay unresolved; a human reviewer must assess source text. |
No price is shown because a price difference cannot resolve a semantic question. The example does not assess whether either contract exists or how any venue would settle it.
A review workflow that preserves uncertainty
- Define the proposition. State the event, outcome boundary and period independently of a venue's label.
- Read the primary terms. Record the exact source text, deadline, time zone, resolution source and exceptions that are available to the reviewer.
- Classify the relationship. Decide whether the contracts are complements, mutually exclusive, nested, equivalent under stated conditions, or still unresolved.
- Record the review. Pin the observed terms and relevant versions, explain the rationale, and revisit the conclusion after a material change.
What contract analysis can and cannot establish
A reviewed relationship is a research classification based on the available terms. It does not guarantee a settlement, create a legal opinion, make two prices directly interchangeable or prove an executable arbitrage.
Predict Here supports same-source relationship review. Cross-source comparison is conditional on two currently entitled sources, a current human-reviewed mapping and eligible observations; source rollout and organization rights remain separate. The public sample uses synthetic records.
For a reusable review worksheet, use the contract-comparison checklist. Read the existing contract-equivalence paper and the data dictionary for product field definitions.
Discuss a contract-review workflow
An institutional evaluation can scope the event set, source permissions and review process your team needs. Access and source rights are confirmed separately.