When we published a 90% price range, price landed inside it close to 90% of the time, across every market and horizon we serve. Measured coverage ran from 87.9% to 91.0% against a nominal 90%. That is exactly what a calibrated range is supposed to do, and it is the claim we stand behind.
The opposite result matters just as much. Our forecast of the specific centre price never beat a simple random walk, in any of the twelve markets. Predicting roughly where price will settle added nothing over assuming it stays put. So we stopped selling it. You will never see a price target on Enodara, because we could not earn one.
| Market | Class | 5-minute | Hourly | Daily | Natural clock |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMD | Stock | 57.8 | 53.1 | no edge | 5-minute |
| NVIDIA | Stock | 57.0 | 50.8 | no edge | 5-minute |
| Apple | Stock | 55.7 | 54.0 | no edge | 5-minute |
| Bitcoin | Crypto | 56.2 | 55.9 | no edge | 5-minute and hourly |
| Ethereum | Crypto | 55.7 | 57.3 | no edge | hourly, strongest overall |
| Silver | Metal | 55.2 | 55.1 | no edge | flat across the board |
| Gold | Metal | 55.0 | 55.7 | no edge | hourly |
| Oil (WTI) | Energy | 54.2 | 56.1 | no edge | hourly |
| Brent | Energy | 53.1 | 56.2 | no edge | hourly |
| Dow Jones | Index | 54.0 | 55.8 | no edge | hourly |
| Nasdaq 100 | Index | 54.4 | 55.6 | no edge | hourly |
| S&P 500 | Index | 52.6 | 54.2 | no edge | weak everywhere |
Each asset class turns out to have a natural clock. Single stocks are strongest over five minutes and close to a coin flip over an hour, because their edge is short-horizon and washes out. Energy and indices are the mirror image. Nothing in the study showed reliable directional skill on the daily chart, so the daily view publishes a range only.
Conviction is calibrated, so the number is meant to be read as a real probability rather than as enthusiasm. In practice that puts almost every reading much closer to 50% than people expect. Readings sit on roughly a 45 to 50, 50 to 55, and 55%-plus scale, and even the strongest bucket lands near 58%.
An earlier version of this page reported accuracies in the eighties for high-conviction readings. Those came from raw, uncalibrated model output measured on a small number of instances, and the engine that produced them has since been recalibrated. We do not publish those figures any more because the current system cannot produce them, and a number you can never see in the product has no business on a page about performance.
This study measured the twelve markets we covered when it was run. Our coverage has since grown to thirty-four, and those newer markets are not in the table above. We would rather leave a gap than fill it with numbers this study did not measure, so they will appear once they have been through the same process. The figures here will be refreshed when the models are next retrained and rescored.