PUBLIC RESEARCH RESOURCE
A checklist for comparing prediction-market contracts.
Use the questions below to test whether two contracts express the same proposition, what evidence supports that conclusion and which uncertainties must remain visible. The checklist is free to read and download without an email gate.
Download the checklist and evidence template
Choose a plain-language worksheet or a machine-readable JSON template. Both are blank educational resources. The template is not a Predict Here product export or a claim about fields returned by a particular endpoint.
Questions to answer before comparing prices
Write down what each contract says. Leave a field blank or mark it unknown when the source text does not answer it.
- Name the proposition. What real-world event or condition is being tested?
- State both outcomes. What exact condition makes YES true and what makes NO true?
- Compare thresholds and units. Check operator, measurement unit, reference period and boundary inclusivity.
- Normalize timing. Record the deadline, observation window and named time zone, then compare the actual instants.
- Identify resolution sources. Include the source hierarchy, publication version and fallback language where available.
- Read exceptions. Check cancellations, delays, corrections, missing values, disputes and lifecycle rules.
- Pin the evidence. Preserve source references, capture times and the exact terms or versions reviewed, subject to source rights.
- Record the relationship and reviewer. Distinguish equivalent, complementary, nested, mutually exclusive, not equivalent and unresolved cases.
- Keep price evidence separate. Add source, side, observation time, size, quality and fees only after the proposition is clear.
- State the limitation. Explain what the comparison does not establish; a price difference is not proof of arbitrage.
Blank side-by-side worksheet
| Review question | Contract A | Contract B | Difference or uncertainty |
|---|---|---|---|
| What exact proposition settles? | |||
| What does YES mean? What does NO mean? | |||
| What threshold, unit and observation period apply? | |||
| What is the cutoff and time zone? | |||
| Which source resolves the contract? | |||
| What happens after cancellations, corrections or missing data? | |||
| Which version was observed and reviewed? | |||
| Who reviewed the relationship and when? |
This HTML worksheet is for reading. Use the downloadable Markdown or JSON file to retain a blank copy. It does not store answers or transmit user data.
Evidence record fields to consider
A useful memo can record the analyst's question, proposition, contract references, source identity, source and capture times, rules version, relationship type and review status, methodology identifier, inputs, assumptions, known gaps, conclusion and next review trigger.
Product response shapes vary by endpoint. The Predict Here documentation describes current documented fields and access boundaries; this worksheet does not promise that every listed field is available from every source or endpoint.
Only retain or redistribute source material when current source terms and your organization's rights allow it. A hash can help compare captured bytes, but it is not a digital signature, external certification or proof that a source was correct.
Scope and limitations
This is an educational aid, not legal, investment or trading advice. It does not verify a contract, determine a venue's settlement, grant data rights or establish that a particular comparison is safe to combine. Predict Here's public sample uses synthetic records. Source-based organization workflows require sign-in, applicable source rights and current availability; access and rollout are separate.
Discuss an institutional research workflow
If your team is evaluating source-linked contract research, request a conversation about the event set, rights and review process involved.