Report date 2026-06-26 · Horizon 45 days · Book size $1,000 · Methodology v3 (conviction-weighted, EV-agnostic, 15% cluster cap)
Verdict: no deployable edge this week. 0 PICKS 8 REJECTS 100% CASH
The Science & Technology slate is dominated by three liquid clusters — AI-model release timing, GPU compute-price ladders, and SpaceX launch counts — and each fails a v3 screen for a $1,000 book. The AI-release ladder repriced violently in the last ~24 hours on OpenAI's June miss (edge already eaten). The compute ladders settle off an opaque third-party index I cannot independently verify. The one near-locked favorite (SpaceX ≥14 June launches) has a 5¢ spread that forces a negative-edge cross. Per v3, a near-empty book in an efficient week is the correct answer — padding it with low-conviction filler is exactly what lost money in the resolved track record. So: zero deployed, full cash, and the work is in the rejects below.
Selection mode: category-match. $CATEGORY = "Science and Technology" matched trading_events.category directly and returned 171 active markets closing within 45 days — a healthy population, so no theme/keyword fallback was needed.
Pipeline:
/schema and confirmed table/column names (trading_events.category, trading_markets.rules, market_snapshots) before any query.volume24h < 1500, bid-ask spread > 5¢, fully-priced legs (YES bid ≥ 95¢ or ask ≤ 5¢), announcer/“mention” noise, and the 11 tickers already live in users' feeds from prior runs. 12 candidates survived.rules text, 14-day intraday history from market_snapshots, the live Kalshi orderbook (depth-of-book, not just top quote), and grounded each thesis in primary-source news (OpenAI release coverage, SpaceflightNow / Wikipedia launch logs, Kalshi series settlement sources).Live prices/quotes captured 2026-06-26 ~15:00–15:30 UTC from the Kalshi public API; snapshot fields from the DB mirror. Probabilities are subjective estimates, stated explicitly per candidate as a calibration datum.
The 12 markets that cleared the mechanical Stage-1 filter, with the live read at pick time. “Eff. entry” is the price you'd pay for the side a trade would take. Every row resolved to a reject — see §4.
| Ticker | Market | YES bid/ask | Vol 24h | OI | Cluster | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KXGPT-OPENB-26JUL03 | GPT-5.6+ before Jul 3 | 15 / 16 | 20,370 | 14,289 | gpt-5.6-release | reject — edge eaten |
| KXGPT-OPENB-26JUL10 | GPT-5.6+ before Jul 10 | 39 / 41 | 2,989 | 3,344 | gpt-5.6-release | reject — 24h repricing |
| KXGPT-OPENB-26JUL31 | GPT-5.6+ before Jul 31 | 68 / 69 | 6,148 | 19,602 | gpt-5.6-release | reject — no depth |
| KXH200Q-26JUN30-4.390 | H200 price > $4.39 by Jun 30 | 90 / 93 | 7,802 | 13,129 | gpu-compute-price | reject — source |
| KXH200Q-26JUN30-4.590 | H200 price > $4.59 by Jun 30 | 91 / 93 | 3,754 | 13,086 | gpu-compute-price | reject — source |
| KXH200Q-26JUN30-4.790 | H200 price > $4.79 by Jun 30 | 91 / 92 | 3,648 | 5,275 | gpu-compute-price | reject — source |
| KXH200Q-26JUN30-4.990 | H200 price > $4.99 by Jun 30 | 89 / 93 | 13,774 | 20,546 | gpu-compute-price | reject — at-the-money |
| KXH200Q-26JUN30-3.190 | H200 price > $3.19 by Jun 30 | 91 / 94 | 3,742 | 5,681 | gpu-compute-price | reject — source |
| KXH200Q-26JUN30-3.390 | H200 price > $3.39 by Jun 30 | 93 / 96 | 4,500 | 6,124 | gpu-compute-price | reject — source |
| KXH200Q-26JUN30-3.990 | H200 price > $3.99 by Jun 30 | 94 / 95 | 2,400 | 6,082 | gpu-compute-price | reject — source |
| KXH200Q-26JUN30-5.590 | H200 price > $5.59 by Jun 30 | 3 / 6 | 4,354 | 4,671 | gpu-compute-price | reject — priced tail |
| KXSPACEXCOUNT-26JUN-13 | >13 SpaceX launches in June (≥14) | 89 / 94 | 7,843 | 46,961 | spacex-june-launches | reject — spread |
The H200 rungs share one underlying (the Jun-30 H200 index print) — they are one cluster, not nine independent edges. Adjacent compute ladders (A100, H100, B200, RTX 5090) were screened as the same class and carry the identical settlement-source problem. AI-leaderboard markets (“Best AI / Top Model / Top Coding AI” in June) were already resolved-in-practice (Anthropic/Claude leading, legs pinned at 0–1¢ or 97–99¢) and dropped at Stage 1. Gemini 3.5 Pro, GPT-6, New Glenn, Starship-from-Florida, FDA drug approvals, and nuclear-criticality markets were all dropped at Stage 1 for volume24h well below 1,500.
No contracts cleared the v3 screen. There are zero numbered picks this run. This is a deliberate output, not a gap in coverage: see the three structural reasons in the lede and the per-candidate rejects in §4. The recommended action on a $1,000 book is to hold 100% cash and revisit when (a) the AI-release ladder settles into a stable price the market and I disagree on, or (b) a compute market migrates to a verifiable settlement source.
Two candidates are genuinely close and sit on the watchlist with explicit triggers — see Execution notes in §5.
| Position | Cost | % of capital | Max payout | EV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash reserve | $1,000 | 100% | $1,000 | $0 |
| Deployed (contracts) | $0 | 0% | $0 | $0 |
| Total | $1,000 | 100% | $1,000 | $0 |
Total deployed $0 · Cash held $1,000 (100%) · Max book payout $1,000 · Blended EV 0% · Dollar edge $0. Per v3 the cash floor is ~10% of capital; here the whole book is the floor because nothing else cleared.
| Cluster | Deployed cost | % of capital | Cap (15%) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| gpt-5.6-release | $0 | 0% | $150 | within cap |
| gpu-compute-price-jun30 | $0 | 0% | $150 | within cap |
| spacex-june-launches | $0 | 0% | $150 | within cap |
| gpt6-release | $0 | 0% | $150 | within cap |
| Tier | Per-pick cap | Deployed | # picks |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | $150 (15%) | $0 | 0 |
| MEDIUM | $70 (7%) | $0 | 0 |
| LOW | $30 (3%) | $0 | 0 |
Every Stage-2 survivor that didn't make the cut is logged here and machine-tracked to settlement. If these rejects resolve as well as picks would have, the selection screen adds nothing — that's a finding worth knowing either way. Stage-3.5 entry-band cuts are called out explicitly.
My P(NO, i.e. no GPT-5.6 by Jul 10) = 70% · Market-implied P(NO) ≈ 59% · Cluster gpt-5.6-release
The cleanest directional thesis on the board — fade near-term GPT-5.6 release after OpenAI's heavily-anticipated June window collapsed (prediction-market odds for late-June fell from ~83% to ~18%). The problem is timing: this market already did the move. YES repriced from ~85¢ to ~41¢ in the last ~24 hours on the June miss (verified in the 5-min snapshot history). Buying NO now is chasing a same-direction move that already happened.
My P(NO, no release in ~6 days) = 90% · Market-implied P(NO) ≈ 84% · Cluster gpt-5.6-release
Directionally I agree the market won't ship in a specific 6-day window with no imminent signal. But after the same 24h repricing, NO already costs ~85¢, and the deployable depth sits at 0.88–0.90 effective (the deep yes-bid wall at 10–13¢), leaving ≤2¢ of residual edge.
My P(YES, GPT-5.6 by end-July) = 71% · Market-implied P(YES) ≈ 68% · Cluster gpt-5.6-release
July is the consensus release window, and the 91¢→69¢ repricing may have slightly overshot. But the top-of-book is ~1 contract at the 0.69 ask, then 0.73 / 0.79 — sizing 100+ contracts means >5¢ of slippage, which erases a 1–3¢ edge. Also freshly repriced.
My P(YES) ≈ 96% (conditional on a clean print) · Market-implied ≈ 91% · Cluster gpu-compute-price-jun30
This is the most tempting trap: deep book (thousands of contracts), a 4-day horizon, and a threshold ($4.39) 13% below the implied spot, so the GPU rental price physically can't fall through it in time. But the market settles off the Ornn index (ornnai.com), whose live H200 value I could not independently verify (the site is JS-loaded and routes to a data portal I can't read). The implied spot (~$5.0–5.1, inferred from the cliff to the $5.19 rung at ~3¢) is the market's number, not mine — so buying here is selling tail-insurance against an index I don't understand, with no information advantage.
My P(YES) ≈ 60% · Market-implied ≈ 91% (but threshold ≈ implied spot) · Cluster gpu-compute-price-jun30
Unlike the lower rungs, $4.99 sits right at the implied settlement spot — small index noise flips it. That makes it effectively a coin-flip on the index's exact print, dressed as a 91¢ favorite.
My P(YES, ≥14 June launches) = 93% · Market-implied ≈ 89–91% · Cluster spacex-june-launches
The strongest mechanical case on the board: by Jun 24 SpaceX had flown the 7th of 8 planned June Vandenberg launches plus ~6 Florida launches, so ≥13 are already in the books with the cadence (~one every 2–3 days) pointing to ≥14 by Jun 30. The market's own ladder agrees — modal final count is exactly 14. But the quote is 89 bid / 94 ask: crossing to 0.94 for a ~93% event is negative edge, and a positive entry (≤0.92) requires a patient limit into a gapped book with no guarantee of a fill.
My P(NO) ≈ 98% · Market-implied ≈ 96–98% · Cluster gpt6-release
A full-integer GPT-6 jump before Jul 1 is ~nil and the market agrees (YES ~2–4¢). Thinly traded (vol24h ~545) and effectively fully priced as NO.
≥15 June launches ≈ 9% tail · Cluster spacex-june-launches
Listed for completeness: this rung is already an active pick in users' feeds from a prior run, so re-emitting it would duplicate the feed. Independently it's an unattractive ~9% tail.
market_snapshots).Data sources: Kalshi read-only DB mirror (trading_events, trading_markets, market_snapshots) for population, rules, and 5-min price/volume history; Kalshi public API for live orderbooks; web search/fetch for primary-source grounding. Methodology v3 — conviction-weighted & EV-agnostic sizing, 60–90¢ favorite entry band, 15% per-cluster cap.
Disclaimer: Probabilities are subjective estimates, not guarantees. Prediction-market contracts can resolve to zero and you can lose 100% of capital at risk. This is research, not financial advice. v3 picks are cleared for auto-copy and count toward the public track record — which is precisely why a $0-deployed, all-cash week is reported plainly when the slate is efficient, rather than padded to hit a count.