Question Clarity
How unambiguous the market's wording and rules are. In plain terms: are the resolution criteria precise, or is there room to reinterpret them after the fact so the market resolves against you even when the event arguably 'happened'?
How we score it
From a baseline, we assess question structure, whether a specific resolution date is stated, and the presence of fuzzy language that leaves room for a disputed outcome. Precise wording, a specific resolution date, and rules that admit only one reasonable interpretation raise the score; vague timing ('soon', 'this year'), hedging language ('officially', 'deemed', 'expected'), or an over-long, convoluted question lower it. The canonical anchors are real disputes where an event arguably occurred yet the contract's definition was read to resolve the other way.
How to read your score
Higher means clearer rules with less room for a disputed outcome. A lower score flags wording that could be read more than one way — leaving room to resolve against you even when the event 'happened'. This axis is scored 0-100; the composite weights it at 10%.
No meaningful risk signal on this axis. Nothing here that warrants extra scrutiny before taking a position.
A clean read with only minor or ambiguous signals. Reasonable to proceed with normal due diligence.
A moderate signal worth a second look. Read the evidence on the market page before sizing a position.
A pronounced structural signal on this axis. Understand exactly what is driving it before participating.
A strong structural signal. This axis is the kind of thing a careful trader would resolve before trusting the market's price.
Signals we look for
Vague timing language ('soon', 'this year') with no specific resolution date.
Hedging or interpretive terms ('officially', 'deemed', 'expected', 'control over territory').
An over-long, convoluted question that buries the actual resolution condition.
Criteria where a real-world event could plausibly map to either outcome.
A question whose resolution the platform has previously overridden against its own oracle.
References
The academic, industry, and regulatory sources that ground how this dimension is scored. Each note states what the source backs.
Polymarket sparks outrage settling $10.5M Venezuela invasion market as 'No'
DeFi Rate (ambiguous-criteria resolution dispute) · 2025
The canonical ambiguous-criteria anchor: an arguably-occurred event ruled not to meet the contract's wording, resolving toward 'No'.
Polymarket contradicts UMA's resolution on Barron Trump's involvement with DJT token
The Block (platform override of decentralized oracle) · 2024
Shows a contested question can be overridden by the platform — clarity and presentation directly affect who gets paid.
Prediction Laundering
Rohanifar, Ahmed & Sultana, arXiv:2602.05181 · 2026
Framing/taxonomy for why presentation matters — a confident-looking probability can hide who actually set it.
Statistical signals, not allegations. Every dimension measures a structural property of a market — the shape of its flow, the clarity of its question, the trustworthiness of its resolution source. A low score flags where a careful trader should look harder. It is never a claim that a specific account, or the market itself, has broken a rule.