Prediction evidence

incorrectPolicy v1.0

Source post

Published 21 Jul 2026, 01:04 UTC · fetched 20 Oct 2026, 05:26 UTC

CrediBULL Crypto

@CredibleCrypto

In reply to · 20 Jul 2026, 22:49 UTC · context given to the AI

@CredibleCrypto Don't you see a 5 wave impulse in the middle there where you have the head?

@Shaks2t I can see the argument for that. I think part of my bias also stems from the idea that I can see a solid argument for a LTF pullback on both BTC and ETH as well and if we get that it increases the odds that we take the low of that proposed LTF impulse as well.

View original on X ↗

How this was scored

Deterministic: the same prices and policy always give the same result

Baseline: first BTC price at or after publication, $65,194 at 21 Jul 2026, 02:00 UTC.
Evaluation: price at the end of the 24 hours horizon, $66,390 at 22 Jul 2026, 02:00 UTC.
r = 66390.21 / 65193.53 − 1 = +1.84%
Direction d = −1 (bearish), so d × r = -1.84% against a neutral band of ±0.00% → incorrect

Only the end-of-horizon price counts. A brief move followed by a reversal is not a success. Read the methodology

AI interpretation

Uses only text available at publication time

Asset: Bitcoin (BTC)
Direction: ▼ Bearish
Intent: inferred
Horizon: 24 hours (default, none stated)
Evidence span: “I think part of my bias also stems from the idea that I can see a solid argument for a LTF pullback on both BTC and ETH as well and if we get that it increases the odds that we take the low of that proposed LTF impulse as well.”
Confidence: 90%
Review state: auto accepted
Model / prompt: gpt-6-luna+decisions · decisions-v3

Prediction evidence

Source post

How this was scored

AI interpretation

Outcome record

Request a correction