How the reading is done

Everything below is how the engine actually runs.

The intake is fixed

The same sources every run, in the same order.

It can't bluff. A source is added by changing the engine. An editor does not get to add one because it looks interesting today.

Preprints

arXiv

bioRxiv

medRxiv

ChemRxiv

Patents & regulatory

USPTO PatentsView

SEC EDGAR

ClinicalTrials.gov

SAM.gov

DARPA

Code & models

GitHub

Hugging Face

Technical communities

Hacker News

Lobste.rs

Practitioner forums

r/LocalLLaMA

r/MachineLearning

r/biotech

r/QuantumComputing

r/Futurology

Specialist press

Breaking Defense

DefenseScoop

The War Zone

STAT News

Nothing enters late

Nothing enters a run more than hours after it was published. In practice the median is .

A paper posted on Monday is read in Monday's runs or Tuesday's, or it does not enter at all.

Verified across the cleared signals carrying both a publication and a discovery timestamp: over the limit, longest gap .

Every candidate meets the same five questions

Five dimensions, scored the same way every time. Score the same signal twice and the number comes back the same.

Magnitude

0–3

How big does this get if it’s real?

A 3 means the finding could change something fundamental: how we compute, how we treat a disease, what counts as money. That is a measure of the discovery’s size, not any price move.

Asymmetry

0–2

Is the crowd still blind to this?

A 2 means the originating community is the only audience. No mainstream coverage. No price action. The window is open, and it could close fast.

Adoption path

0–2

Can this actually reach price action?

Identifiable actors, a real commercial path, visible calendar catalysts.

Novelty

0–1

Is this a new development, or recycled noise?

Something the field didn’t already know. Not one more data point stacked onto a trend everyone is already tracking.

Investability

0–1

Is there a public way to express this?

At least one liquid, publicly traded vehicle, reverified by search during that run, never from memory. If nothing verifies, this dimension scores zero, full stop.

Total

0–9

Summed. No weighting, no adjustment.

Nothing is filtered out by score. A two is published with the same reasoning and the same verified market exposure as an eight.

In cleared signals, nothing has ever scored 9 out of 9.
have scored .
The mean is .

The scale is not calibrated to be reached. A 9 would require a finding that is fundamental, invisible to the crowd, commercially routed, genuinely new, and publicly expressible, all at once. That has not happened yet.

What the engine is forbidden to do

Four ways this could fail quietly. Each is forbidden by name.

Getting bored

No skimming, no stopping early, no generalising from the first few, no declaring an empty day because the opening items were weak. The thousandth item gets the same scrutiny as the first.

Forcing a signal

No raising a score because a run has produced nothing. An empty day is a valid result.

Dropping the tail

Every candidate gets its own verdict object. The counts reconcile exactly. Hundreds of disqualifications is the expected output, not a failure.

Faking an assessment

The cardinal violation: claiming a verdict without doing the work behind it. No calling something routine without having read it. No marking an item unreadable without having actually run the recovery search and recorded the queries. No concluding there is no investable angle from an abstract, without running the search that would find one.

Order and depth of lookup are decided by triage. Whether something gets assessed is not.

Each of these rules exists because the system did the thing the rule now forbids, and it was caught.

What it is allowed to claim

Every factual claim in a published signal comes from one of three places: the item itself, a source read by search during that run, or knowledge so established it could not have changed.

Anything else is left out. Not hedged, not attributed to “reports”, not softened with “reportedly” or “around”. Hedging an invented fact is still inventing it. The analysis is shorter, and true.

When a claim would materially strengthen the thesis and cannot be grounded, the gap is stated plainly instead of filled.

When it can't read

An item it could not open is marked unreadable, with the searches it ran attached.

A filing that won't load doesn't get a guess. The engine logs the exact searches it tried and stops there. An unreadable source stays marked unreadable; it is never quietly folded into “nothing here” just because we couldn't get in.

Who the exposure runs to

Every signal names the listed companies attached to its thesis. Each name carries the reason it is there.

Direct

Originates the development, or sits in the layer the signal affects

Supplies it

Sells the infrastructure, components or scarce inputs the change runs on

Builds on it

Adopts, licenses or commercialises it, or sits next to it in a market whose economics shift

Loses to it

Exposure runs the other way. Worse off if the thesis holds

When it can't verify

Every ticker is confirmed by search in the run it appears in, or omitted.

Nothing is pulled from memory. What the engine “remembers” about which companies are public can be out of date, so listing status gets rechecked every time. A name that can't be confirmed gets dropped, not guessed. No public vehicle, no signal.

There is no third state

Every candidate ends scored or disqualified. There is no unassessed state, no backlog, and no pile of things the engine got to later.

An item that could not be opened is disqualified as unreadable, with its recovery searches recorded. That is a verdict.

What happens after publication

A signal carries two states that move independently. One tracks the clock, the other tracks the evidence.

Stage — where it sits in time

Upcoming

the window hasn’t opened yet

Live

the window is open

Closed

the window has passed

Stage moves on the calendar alone. A signal reaches Closed whether or not anything happened.

Outcome — what has happened to the thesis

Unresolved

no verdict yet

Confirming

evidence building in favour

Catalyst fired

the predicted event happened

Invalidated

the thesis broke

Lapsed

the window closed with no verdict

The last three are terminal. A signal reaches one of them, never two. Every verdict is dated and sourced, never inferred.

A cousin of the predicted event is confirming, not catalyst fired.

The event that fires a catalyst has to be the one the signal named.

A verified miss strengthens the archive. An unverifiable win destroys it.

Nothing is relabelled to look better in hindsight.

When a prediction stops being checkable?

A catalyst can become unanswerable without the thesis playing out or breaking. The vote is deferred. The call happens and nobody raises it. One of two named conditions is settled the other way, so the test can never fire.

What follows depends on whether the occasion was actually a test.

If it arrived and was never a test, the signal gets a new catalyst against a different observable, and a new invalidation. The retired catalyst stays on the record. The replacement has to be a different test. The same question asked one quarter later is not one. A signal whose only remaining test is the old test moved forward is retired instead.

If it arrived, was a test, and came out against the thesis, there is no replacement. The signal lapses there. It does not sit out a window it can no longer resolve in.

No catalyst is re-issued past the horizon. The window is measured from the day the signal was discovered, never from today.

What the score does not tell you

The score measures how large a development is and how few people have noticed. It does not measure how likely the thesis is to resolve.

Magnitude asks how big this gets if it's real. Novelty asks whether the field already knew. Neither asks whether it will happen, and none of the five dimensions does. A high score means the discovery is significant and under-covered. It is not a probability.

You can move your own bar. What it measures does not change.

Every signal is published with its full score breakdown, its sources, its stated catalyst and the thing that would prove it wrong.

Start 14-day free trial

No credit card required. Cancel anytime.

See the record →
PUMPKN.AI logo
Follow𝕏
FAQDisclaimerTermsPrivacyCookieRefundLegal