Audit: AG6

DownloadDocs

What this page is for: the problems with this corpus and the evidence behind them. The files are on the download page, and what the columns mean is in the format notes.

What is wrong with this data

What is thin in AG6 is TIME, not market breadth.

• It holds 136 of the 333 hours in its span. 2026-08-01T13 to 2026-08-15T09, 41% hour density. The roughly 197 hours it does not hold are gaps in TIME. An hour it holds is not thinner than its neighbours; it is simply not there. hour census over the served AG6 objects, 2026-08-31
• Traded coverage is nearly whole. Ratio 0.9977 across the audit's six pre-registered AG6 hours, 47 traded markets missed in total. On the hour read in depth, four markets traded with no book, with fill counts of 171, 5, 4 and 2, and no phantom fills at all. audit instrument against on-chain fills, 2026-08-31
• Its market universe is BROADER than pmxt/v2's, not narrower. On the seven hours they share, AG6 misses 0.55% of v2's markets while v2 misses 3.09% of AG6's. audit instrument, 2026-08-31
• On the hours they share, AG6 is MORE complete than pmxt/v2 on the markets that actually traded. Both corpora measured against the same set of on-chain fills across all seven shared hours: AG6 0.9972, pmxt/v2 0.9896. The split behind that: markets present in v2 and absent from AG6 are 47 traded and 4,298 untraded; markets present in AG6 and absent from v2 are 246 traded and 24,688 untraded. So most of what AG6 lacks never traded, and only 47 markets that did trade are missing from it. phantom_fills is 0 across all seven hours, which is the era split predicting correctly: a consistency check passing, and not evidence that the column is never true. box-ops chain reads over the 7 shared hours, joined by recon 942a1ad3, 2026-08-31

Measured against the chain

Every figure here is measured against on-chain fills for the same hour, by an instrument that shares no input with this archive. Six hours were drawn, and which six was written down before anything was measured. Six hours is a floor, not a sample large enough to describe a corpus, so nothing here is a population rate.

Against our own capture, which scored 1.0000 on the same instrument: this corpus is at 0.9977, close enough that the difference does not survive rounding to a percentage. In whole markets it is 47 of 20,601 that traded and have no book here. See all four side by side.

Pre-registration 5ae4e8765d601145, draw 02a94091dea9c11f, measured 2026-08-31.

Markets held, against markets traded

A corpus holds a book for many markets that nobody traded in a given hour. That is not waste: an untraded market with a book is breadth, and it is the difference between an archive you can ask questions of and one that only answers about the busy markets. This counts both sides for each drawn hour.

Median 38.8 markets held for every one that traded, across 6 drawn hours spanning 33.5x to 43.2x.

Our own capture holds about 52 books for every market that traded; this one holds about 39, roughly 1.3 times fewer. What it holds can still be trusted: this is a statement about how much of the market it watched, not about whether what it recorded is right. See all four side by side.

Breadth is not completeness and a bigger number is not automatically better: this says nothing about whether the markets that did trade have books, which is what the coverage ratio above measures. The two share no arithmetic, and they rank the four corpora in the same order.