Editorial & Research Methodology
How PredictFact Researches Prediction Markets
PredictFact starts with the market rules, checks primary and authoritative sources, separates reported facts from market prices and independent analysis, and makes uncertainty visible so readers can verify the reasoning for themselves.
Our standard is simple: show the work
A prediction-market percentage can look precise while still depending on contract wording, liquidity, deadlines, source quality and new information. PredictFact is designed to make those layers easier to see instead of presenting a market price or an editorial view as certainty.
Read the contract
We begin with the exact question, deadline, definitions, resolution criteria and named resolution source where available.
Verify the evidence
We prefer official documents, first-party platform documentation, regulators, filings, datasets and other authoritative sources.
Separate the layers
Market-implied probability, reported fact and PredictBoy’s interpretation should be distinguishable rather than blended together.
From market question to published analysis
Start with the exact market question
We copy the question as the market defines it and identify the relevant outcome options. Similar-looking markets can resolve differently, so wording comes before probability.
Read the resolution rules before interpreting the price
We identify deadlines, thresholds, edge cases, named sources, settlement procedures and any wording that could materially change what counts as YES, NO or another outcome.
Record a dated market snapshot
When an article discusses current odds, we aim to record the relevant market price or probability with a date and, when useful, a time. Market prices can move after publication, so a snapshot should not be presented as permanently current.
Collect primary and authoritative evidence
Official statistics, government publications, company filings, platform rules, legal documents, regulator material, official results and first-party technical documentation are preferred when they can answer the question directly.
Use secondary reporting for context, not as a substitute for stronger evidence
High-quality reporting can add chronology, expert reaction and context. When a primary source is available for a material factual claim, we generally prefer the primary source.
Identify the factors that could move the outcome
We organize evidence into drivers, counterarguments, catalysts and uncertainty. For analytical articles, factors may be weighted when doing so makes the reasoning easier to inspect.
Keep market probability separate from PredictBoy’s assessment
A market price is evidence about what traders currently imply; it is not automatically our own forecast. If PredictBoy reaches a different view, the difference should be explicit.
Make uncertainty visible
We call out thin liquidity, ambiguous rules, unresolved facts, conflicting sources, timing risk and assumptions that could change the conclusion.
Link readers back to the evidence
Source sections are intended to let readers inspect the market, documentation and supporting evidence instead of relying only on our summary.
Correct material errors and update material changes
If a factual error is identified, or if a platform changes a rule, fee, feature or eligibility condition that materially affects a guide, we aim to review and correct the page. Readers can use the Contact & Corrections page to flag an issue.
What sources do we prefer?
| Priority | Source type | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Primary | Market rules, platform documentation, regulators, government data, official filings, court records, official results | Core facts, definitions, dates, mechanics, resolution rules and eligibility |
| 2 — Authoritative secondary | Major news organizations, established research institutions, recognized subject-matter publications | Context, chronology, interviews, interpretation and events not fully documented in one primary source |
| 3 — Supporting | Aggregators, dashboards, community discussion and other derivative sources | Discovery or supplementary context; material claims should be checked against stronger evidence when possible |
Authorship, AI assistance and editorial responsibility
Who: PredictBoy is the author voice used across PredictFact. Pages should make authorship visible and link readers to background information about the site and its editorial purpose.
How: Research may use software and AI tools to help organize information, compare sources, structure drafts, inspect data or create editorial illustrations. These tools do not turn an unsupported claim into a fact. Material factual statements should still be grounded in sources appropriate to the claim, and generated visuals should be labeled when they are illustrative rather than live market screenshots.
Why: PredictFact is created to help readers understand prediction-market mechanics, evidence, probabilities, platform differences and uncertainty. The purpose is educational decision support—not to guarantee outcomes or tell readers what they must trade.
Google Search Central recommends making it clear who created content, how it was produced when that context is useful, and why it exists. PredictFact uses this framework as an editorial self-check rather than treating E-E-A-T as a single ranking score.
Affiliate relationships do not change the analytical standard
PredictFact may use affiliate or referral links on some platform pages. A commercial relationship should be disclosed clearly and should not decide which facts are included, how a fee is described, whether a limitation is disclosed, or what analytical probability is assigned to a market.
Commercial links should be qualified appropriately for search engines, and readers should be able to understand the material relationship close to a recommendation or call-to-action.
See the full disclosure
How PredictFact handles commissions, affiliate links and editorial independence.
What happens when information is wrong or changes?
- Factual errors can be corrected when reliable evidence supports the change.
- Material platform changes may trigger a review of affected guides.
- Market snapshots remain historical snapshots; a later price move is not itself an error.
- Predictions that turn out differently are not rewritten to imply they were known in advance.
- Readers can submit a correction request with the page URL, disputed statement and supporting source.
Found something that needs review?
Send the page URL and the strongest source you have.