The cadence model, honestly
When no scored wording is live, rate-v3 estimates a recent reset rate from the latest eight completed reset intervals, weighting each interval equally. It treats arrivals as memoryless: waiting longer does not raise the odds.
The model rounds its 24-hour and 48-hour outputs to whole percentage points. What says how thin the evidence is behind them is the range printed beside each one, not the last digit. It describes irregular goodwill resets in the verified record; it does not turn them into a schedule. With no signal live the page shows at most 46% for 24 hours and 71% for 48 hours; the model's own figures stay in the live JSON.
The wait comparison uses the same recent window: up to eight completed reset intervals, with the actual sample count shown; fewer than three intervals hides the comparison. The percentage counts intervals strictly shorter than the current wait, excluding ties. The typical wait, average and longest are the median, mean and maximum within that window. The current unfinished wait is not a sample. The range beside each probability describes how thin the evidence is given the exposure behind the rate, not a promise that the truth lands inside it. Recent history is not a schedule. Sample through names the end of the last completed interval actually used, always in UTC. Calculated at is the time the forecast was computed (updated_at); it does not mean a new sample was added.
Will Stage 0 (2026-09-10): history is the base. The forecast also publishes the state of Tibo's reset-related posts over the last seven days of the feed (quiet since the reset, a hint, or an unclear post; a live promise belongs to the Alert above) with the post that decided it. That state is shown and explained but not counted in the percentage, until the record shows it has predictive value; the 2026-09-09 test found that weighting the percentage by it made the forecast worse.
Offline single-factor evaluation (2026-09-10, shared cutoff 2026-09-09 11:00 UTC): adding the observed portion of the unfinished wait to the rate denominator returned DATA. Neither event definition establishes continuous observation; pre-window event counts are 18/20 for the production definition and 17/20 for the old audit. In the reconstructed 90-day diagnostic, 24h Brier was slightly lower but 48h Brier was worse, with both block intervals crossing zero. This does not establish an improvement. The historical baseline remains rate-v3; ordinary posts and hints are not additional probability factors.
inference In the live API snapshot observed 2026-08-28, the walk-forward test covered 295 predictions. rate-v3 recorded a Brier score of 0.104, versus 0.106 for the naive baseline; lower is better. It tied the previous rate-v2 score at 0.104, so this is evidence against the naive baseline, not proof that rate-v3 beats every alternative.
open the live forecast JSON
