When the Federation issues a signal forecast, it commits in advance to a falsifiable outcome and scores itself after the fact. This page locks the three parameters that govern that scoring — and pre-registers how the central claim could fail, with a commitment to publish that test either way. The companion Forecast Record holds the results; this page holds the method.
A convergence signal forecasts one thing: that independent accumulation will follow. This spec defines how that is measured, scored, and checked against a control — without ever forecasting price. Every parameter below is committed as method + provisional value + recalibration trigger, consistent with the standing rule that no number is published as final before the data supports it.
The outcome is behavioral and verifiable on-chain by anyone, with no trust in a private resolution.
For a token a signal fires on, count its qualified holders at signal time and again at the horizon. A signal resolves correct if that count grows past a fixed threshold:
outcome = 1 if (qhc_at_H − qhc_at_signal) / qhc_at_signal > threshold
This is non-price (a fraction of supply, not dollars), publicly recomputable from chain data, and roster-private — the count is total, never the watched wallets.
A wallet counts as a qualified holder only if it holds ≥ F% of circulating supply at the snapshot. The floor is the sybil defense, and it is self-defending: to count, a wallet must hold a real, non-trivial position — which is precisely the behavior being measured. Faking the metric requires doing the real thing.
F = 0.01% of circulating supply, fixed across all tokens (not scaled by market cap), so there is one published number anyone can verify. Recalibration trigger: after the first 10 resolved forecasts, the observed holder-balance distribution is reviewed; if 0.01% systematically yields unworkable counts, F is adjusted once and republished with the supporting sample. Until then F is provisional.
The threshold defines what counts as “broadening.” It is a definitional constant, not a performance claim — the same bar applies to signal tokens and to the control. Skill is claimed only through the control comparison below, never through the threshold itself.
+15% growth in qualified-holder count, applied identically at the H7 and H30 horizons. Because holder counts naturally grow more over 30 days than 7, +15% is a harder bar at H7 — so H7 hit-rates are expected to read lower than H30. That is a property of a fixed bar, not a weaker H7 signal, and it is disclosed here in advance.
This is where the record’s credibility lives. The claim is: tokens our signals fire on broaden past the bar more often than comparable tokens with no signal do.
Phase 1 (launch) — unmatched control. The control is every eligible token in the same window on which no signal fired, selected by a mechanical, reproducible rule (no hand-picking), N = 20–30 per resolved batch, scored at the same horizons against the same +15% bar.
Convergence signals often fire on tokens already in motion. An unmatched control compares signal tokens against all eligible tokens and therefore does not isolate predictive skill from pre-existing momentum. Phase 1 results are reported as suggestive, not isolated skill, and this page says so in plain language. We would rather state this ourselves than have it pointed out.
Phase 2 (rigor) — matched control. A second control is added, matched on holder velocity (qualified-holder growth rate in the window before signal time), holding momentum roughly constant on both sides. Both base rates — unmatched and matched — are reported side by side.
The Phase 2 matched-control result is published on the record regardless of outcome. If matching shrinks or eliminates the measured edge, that is published exactly as a positive result would be. This commitment is the reason the comparison means anything — and pre-registering it, before any data exists, is the point. A separate corrections-log entry records this commitment so it cannot be quietly dropped later.
Each resolved forecast is scored by Brier (squared error of the stated probability against the binary outcome). In Phase 1 the probability is pinned at p = 0.50 by design, so the Brier sits at the 0.25 no-skill line until enough history accrues — the model only earns a calibrated probability once forecasts have actually resolved. Edge exists only if the mean Brier beats both the coin-flip line (0.25) and the universe base rate from the control above. Reported split by horizon, never blended into a single headline.
No committed numbers without a spec. F and the threshold are provisional values with explicit recalibration triggers; no final figure is claimed before the data supports it. No price. Every parameter — supply fraction, holder counts, holder velocity — is non-price; price never enters resolution. Pre-registration over flattery. The disclosed confound and the publish-regardless commitment are the core: the method states how its own central claim could be wrong, and commits to testing and publishing it. This spec is versioned and append-tracked alongside the corrections log.