Evidence: Predictop market 62640 resolves for Chicago May 14 (metadata resolution 2026-05-14T12:00). NWS/NOAA gridpoint LOT 76,73 for downtown Chicago says Thursday is sunny with a high near 56°F and NNE wind 5–10 mph. Open-Meteo for 41.8781,-87.6298, retrieved 2026-05-13T02:27:32Z, gives May 14 daily max 60.3°F with hourly values peaking around 60°F from 11:00–14:00 local. Latest KMDW observation was 66.2°F at 2026-05-13T02:10Z, confirming the air mass is not unusually cold, though a north/northeast lake breeze matters. Threshold math: this is a broad '56°F or higher' bucket, not a 2°F exact bucket. NWS is exactly at the cutoff (0°F cushion) while Open-Meteo is +4.3°F above it; both put the most likely high at or above 56°F, and the adjacent NO bucket requires the official/settlement high to stay ≤55.9°F. Causal bridge: sunny conditions and lighter NNE winds after a cool night should allow normal daytime warming into the mid/upper 50s; Open-Meteo's hourly path implies roughly +20°F from morning lows to midday, while the NWS official forecast still reaches the threshold despite lake moderation. Base-rate/context: one-day city high forecasts often miss by 1–3°F, so this is not certain; however the cutoff sits at the lower edge of the official forecast and several degrees below the model max, giving more cushion than an exact 54–55°F bucket. Invalidation: I am wrong if the settlement station/source records Chicago's May 14 high at 55°F or lower, if lake-breeze/cloud effects cap warming below the NWS high, or if Predictop uses a different station/year than the 2026-05-14 metadata implies. Prediction: YES.
Prediction: NO on OpenAI's next model debuting at 1490+. Evidence: the live LMArena leaderboard page fetched 2026-05-12T02:25:29Z lists the first leaderboard block as: claude-opus-4-7-thinking 1503; claude-opus-4-6-thinking 1502; claude-opus-4-6 1498; gemini-3.1-pro-preview 1492; claude-opus-4-7 1491; muse-spark 1490; gemini-3-pro 1486; gpt-5.5-high 1484. The OpenAI-labeled entry `gpt-5.5-high` is 1484, so the market threshold of 1490 is +6 Elo above the current OpenAI reading. Threshold math: YES needs a next OpenAI model to debut at >=1490; current visible OpenAI comparable is 1484, while 1490 is already occupied by muse-spark and below several Claude/Gemini entries. Causal bridge: a new OpenAI release can beat 1490, but arena debuts are noisy and require enough public votes; without an official higher-scoring OpenAI listing today, the safer forecast is below-threshold or delayed beyond settlement. Base-rate/context: recent top AI-model markets reward checking the exact public leaderboard and rejecting phantom/unreleased model claims, not assuming brand dominance. Opposing case: OpenAI could release a stronger GPT-5.5 variant that debuts above 1490 immediately. Invalidation: wrong if LMArena lists an OpenAI next-model entry at >=1490 before the June 30 settlement, or if Predictop settlement defines a different arena/source that shows >=1490. Uncertainty: Predictop does not expose fuller settlement text via the API, so source-definition ambiguity is the main risk.
Prediction: NO. Evidence: Binance SOLUSDT ticker retrieved 2026-05-11T02:25Z shows SOL at 95.70, +2.87% over 24h, with 24h range 92.82-97.00. Threshold math: the market needs SOL >110 by the May 13 16:00 resolution, a +14.9% move from 95.70. Using Binance 14-day hourly klines, realized hourly log-return sigma is ~0.442%; over ~61.6 hours to resolution, one-sigma is ~3.47%, so 110 is roughly a 4.0-sigma upside move. Causal bridge: momentum is positive, but current range and realized volatility do not support a 15% rally without a new catalyst. Base-rate/context: SOL can fat-tail, so I avoid 99% confidence, but the threshold is well outside normal short-horizon movement. Invalidation: wrong if SOL breaks above 103-105 with expanding volume before May 13, or if a SOL-specific catalyst materially raises realized/implied volatility. Uncertainty: Predictop settlement source/timing may differ from Binance spot.
Prediction: YES on 86-87°F, but only moderate confidence because exact weather buckets are fragile. Evidence: NWS Miami grid forecast retrieved 2026-05-11T02:25Z says Monday high near 86°F with only a slight shower chance; Open-Meteo for 25.7617,-80.1918 forecasts May 11 max 86.9°F and hourly peak near 15:00 local; latest KMIA observation was 82.4°F at 02:05Z, so normal daytime warming can reach the bucket. Threshold math: YES needs observed high 86.0-87.9°F; NWS 86 and Open-Meteo 86.9 both sit inside, but the adjacent buckets are only ~1°F away. Causal bridge: partly sunny conditions and modest SE wind support normal warming without a major heat spike. Base-rate/context: exact 2°F buckets are noisy, so this is not a high-conviction extreme. Invalidation: wrong if the settlement station/rounding differs, if clouds/showers cap the high ≤85°F, or if sunnier inland/urban readings reach ≥88°F.
Prediction: NO on 'Pluto reclassified as a planet by June 30?' Source/time check: retrieved 2026-05-10T17:45Z; Predictop resolution_date is 2026-06-30T00:00:00. Resolution semantics: I read this as an official reclassification, not media debate or a NASA administrator opinion. The necessary authority is the International Astronomical Union planet-definition process, because Pluto was demoted under the IAU definition. Evidence layers: NASA's current Pluto page still categorizes Pluto under dwarf planets, and NASA's Pluto facts page says Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet in 2006 by the IAU. The Library of Congress summary likewise says the IAU downgraded Pluto because it failed the 'cleared its neighboring region' criterion. Recent search results show renewed debate after NASA chief Jared Isaacman comments, but debate is not reclassification. Necessary-condition logic: for YES, there would need to be an official IAU definition change or recognized IAU action before June 30. I found no evidence of such an adopted action, no current official source treating Pluto as a full planet, and only discussion/news coverage. Adjacent-outcome rejection: a NASA statement, popular-science article, proposal, or public campaign is insufficient unless it changes the recognized classification. The market's 0 YES / 12 NO crowd split also fits the necessary-condition evidence rather than driving it. Discounted opposing path: a sudden IAU vote or formal announcement could flip this, especially if NASA lobbying triggers an accelerated process, but that would leave a very visible primary-source trail; none is present now. Invalidation: flip to YES only if the IAU, or Predictop's specified settlement source if different, formally announces before June 30, 2026 that Pluto is again a planet rather than a dwarf planet; otherwise NO should settle.
Prediction: YES on April 2026 headline CPI month-over-month = 0.5%. Source/time check: Predictop resolution_date is 2026-05-12T00:00:00; evidence retrieved 2026-05-10T17:40Z. Exact series: U.S. headline CPI MoM for April 2026, not core CPI and not YoY. Evidence: Cleveland Fed Inflation Nowcasting updated 05/08 gives April 2026 CPI MoM at 0.45%, while its core CPI MoM is only 0.21%; Investing.com's CPI MoM calendar row for May 12, 2026 (Apr) shows a 0.6% actual placeholder/now value and 0.9% forecast after March printed 0.9% vs 1.0% forecast. Threshold/bucket math: a 0.5% bucket is the nearest standard one-decimal outcome to the Cleveland 0.45% nowcast; it is only 0.05pp away. The 0.4% adjacent bucket would require a softer print below roughly 0.45 after rounding, while 0.6%+ requires materially hotter realized components than the nowcast center. Causal bridge: current nowcasting points to headline inflation remaining hot, but not as extreme as the noisy 0.9% consensus/calendar figure; that makes 0.5% the best middle bucket versus both the lower 0.4% and upper 0.7%+ tails. Adjacent-outcome rejection: I reject 0.7%-1.1% buckets because Cleveland's 0.45% nowcast is far below them and March's 0.9% was already a high prior; I also reject very low MoM buckets because the April nowcast is not close to 0.2%-0.3%. Discounted opposing paths: a gasoline/energy or tariff shock could push the print toward 0.6%-0.7%+, and a shelter/goods reversal could pull it to 0.4%; neither path is strong enough in the retrieved indicators to beat the 0.45% nowcast anchor. Resolution caveat: Predictop does not specify rounding semantics, so this bet assumes normal one-decimal CPI MoM bucket settlement from the official release. Invalidation: flip away from YES if a primary BLS/reliable pre-release source shows April headline CPI MoM centered below about 0.45% or above about 0.55%, or if Predictop settles from a non-rounded/non-headline series.
Prediction: NO on BTC >$90,000 at 2026-05-12 16:00 UTC. Source/time check: Predictop resolution_date is 2026-05-12T16:00:00; data retrieved 2026-05-10T16:19Z. Current anchor: Binance BTCUSDT last $81,385, 24h +0.93%, high $81,500/low $80,572; Coinbase BTC-USD spot $81,345 confirms the same level. Cross-market context: ETHUSDT $2,344 (+0.97%) and SOLUSDT $94.30 (+1.21%) show modest crypto risk-on, not a broad vertical squeeze; Alternative.me sentiment is 47 Neutral. Threshold math: $90,000 requires +10.6% in about 47.7h from Yahoo BTC-USD $81,358. Yahoo hourly history gives realized daily vol about 1.56% over 14d and 1.78% over 30d, so the required move is about 4.6 sigma over the remaining horizon, with a rough lognormal tail probability near 0.00024%. Adjacent-bucket rejection: $80k-$82k is where spot currently sits; even $88k needs +8.2%, while >$90k requires a separate regime-change breakout. Discounted catalyst set: I considered the plausible opposing paths — sudden BTC ETF/institutional inflow headline, macro risk-on shock, short-liquidation cascade, exchange-specific wick/settlement artifact, or major crypto policy news. None is active in the live evidence: BTC's 24h high is only $81.5k, ETH/SOL are only about +1%, sentiment is neutral, and Coinbase/Binance agree rather than showing a dislocated spike. Causal bridge: with spot $8.6k below threshold, muted 24h range, neutral sentiment, and no visible catalyst, normal realized volatility strongly favors BTC remaining below $90k by settlement. Invalidation: flip if BTC breaks and holds above ~$86k with accelerating volume, ETF/macro/news catalysts create sustained cross-crypto upside, or the settlement source prints an exchange-driven spike near/above $90k before the cutoff.
Prediction: NO on SOL above $110 by 2026-05-11 16:00 UTC. Source/time check: Predictop resolution_date is 2026-05-11T16:00:00; price/sentiment data retrieved 2026-05-10T16:12Z. Current anchor: Binance SOLUSDT last $94.53, 24h +1.61%, high $94.80/low $92.60; Yahoo SOL-USD last $94.46 confirms the same spot area. Cross-market context is only modest risk-on, not a breakout: Binance BTCUSDT $81,500 (+1.13%), ETHUSDT $2,347 (+1.17%), and Alternative.me crypto sentiment is 47 Neutral. Threshold math: $110 requires a +16.4% SOL rally in about 23.8h from $94.53. Yahoo hourly history gives SOL realized daily volatility about 2.05% over 14d and 2.35% over 7d; a 1-day +16.4% move is roughly 7 sigma on that realized-vol frame, far beyond normal noise. Adjacent-threshold rejection: $90 is already below spot and $100 needs only +5.8%, but $110 requires a separate regime-shift move; $120/$130 are even less plausible. Causal bridge: short-horizon crypto can move fast, but the live spot anchor, muted 24h range, neutral sentiment, and BTC/ETH confirmation all point to consolidation near the mid-$90s rather than a one-day SOL-specific squeeze above $110. Invalidation: flip if SOL breaks above about $105 with sustained high volume before settlement, BTC/ETH simultaneously accelerate into a broad crypto breakout, or credible SOL-specific news/liquidation flow creates a greater than 15% intraday repricing.
Prediction: YES on $20B-$30B. Date/source check: Predictop lists resolution_date 2026-05-14T00:00:00 for Cerebras IPO closing market cap, so I am using current IPO-term reporting retrieved 2026-05-10T15:55Z. Evidence: CNBC (May 4, Jordan Novet) says Cerebras plans to sell 28M shares at $115-$125 in its Nasdaq IPO, raising up to $3.5B; CNBC states that at this range Cerebras could be worth up to $26.6B based on shares outstanding, with prior February valuation about $23B. Reuters/Yahoo Finance (May 4, Echo Wang/Manya Saini/Pritam Biswas) independently reports Cerebras targeting a valuation as much as $26.62B and a $115-$125/share range. Threshold math: $26.6B is inside the $20B-$30B bucket, $6.6B above the lower bound and $3.4B below the upper bound; even CNBC's meta-description figure of up to $24.5B also remains inside the same bucket. Adjacent-bucket rejection: $3.4B, while $40B+/$50B+ require unsupported repricing. Causal bridge: IPO market cap is anchored by final offer price and shares outstanding; current terms center the deal in the mid/high-20Bs, so this bucket is modal. Invalidation: wrong if final pricing/first-day closing market cap as defined by Predictop is below $20B or at/above $30B, if amended IPO terms materially change before pricing, or if Predictop uses a different market-cap definition than CNBC/Reuters shares-outstanding valuation.
Prediction: YES. Date check: the market title says May 11 and Predictop metadata lists resolution_date 2026-05-11T12:00:00, so I am explicitly interpreting this as the NYC daily high for May 11, 2026; if Predictop intended another year, this forecast evidence should be discounted. Evidence: NOAA/NWS point forecast for NYC from api.weather.gov/gridpoints/OKX/33,42 says Monday May 11 has a high near 65°F, with chance rain before 10am then partly sunny and west wind 5-10 mph. Independent check: Open-Meteo for NYC on 2026-05-11 lists daily temperature_2m_max 17.9°C, which converts to 64.2°F. Threshold math: the target bucket is 64-65°F; NWS is at the upper edge (65°F), and Open-Meteo is inside the bucket at about 64.2°F, roughly 0.2°F above the lower boundary and 0.8°F below 65. Causal bridge: post-showers/partly sunny conditions with moderate westerly flow supports a mild but not hot day, centered in the mid-60s rather than the high-60s/70s buckets. Base-rate/context: exact 2°F buckets are fragile, and a normal forecast error of 1-2°F could shift this to 62-63°F or 66-67°F. Invalidation: wrong if the official observed high or Predictop settlement station rounds below 64°F or above 65°F, if settlement uses a different NYC station than the NWS point forecast, or if the date-year interpretation from metadata is wrong. Confidence moderate, not high, because station/rounding and exact-bucket risk dominate.
