Quotient evaluated expert predictions against one resolved Polymarket event market. Each prediction was graded for direction, timing, specificity, conviction, and market edge, then aggregated into a case-specific score for each expert.
Whose Iran Calls Held Up?
Quotient evaluated 557 expert predictions from 130 public experts to measure who added signal before the outcome was known.
Higher means more calls held up after the strike. Farther right means calls came earlier in the window. Larger bubbles carry more graded calls.
Expert Index · Iran
Executive Summary
Will the United States conduct a military strike on Iran by February 28, 2026?
The report covers 557 expert predictions from 130 public experts, including think tank analysts, journalists, OSINT accounts, policy commentators, public officials, and event-market accounts.
Credentials failed to predict success. The strongest calls were early, specific, and held while market price moved away from the outcome.
Before the market resolved, the public record pointed in two directions. Diplomacy was still active, with Washington and Tehran talking, Oman mediating, and a round of nuclear talks in Geneva ending with plans to reconvene. Military risk was also rising as Tehran's rhetoric sharpened, U.S. strike options were reported, and a second carrier group moved toward the region.
The market asked whether the United States would conduct a military strike on Iran by February 28, 2026. On Polymarket, the Yes side opened near 43 cents on January 20, peaked at 59 cents on January 30, then fell to 8.5 cents on February 27. The market resolved Yes the next day, after the U.S. military strike was officially confirmed.
The practical goal is to use the resolved case to learn which expert predictions should carry weight in related event markets, including U.S. foreign and defense policy.
Will the United States conduct a military strike on Iran by February 28, 2026?
Loading live dataset
Preparing the curated expert chart from Neo4j.
How the Score Works
Every tracked call starts with accuracy: did it point toward the resolved outcome, or away from it? Calls above 50 held up. Calls below 50 pointed away.
The score
050100
Pointed awayNeutralHeld up
The Iran case score is not a simple average. It starts with whether the call pointed toward the outcome, then accounts for four factors:
01
Market edge
Was the call ahead of the market price?
02
Conviction
Did the source make a firm call or hedge?
03
Specificity
Was the call clear enough to grade?
04
Timing
Was the call early enough to matter?
Scored Expert Sample
Click an account to inspect its rank, score, score components, and representative calls. This sample shows how the method ties each score to evidence.
What the Iran Case Showed
Credentials Failed to Predict Success
Across the full 130-expert record, credentials did not predict signal. In the tracked sample, the top three scores came from OSINT/news, independent analysis, and public commentary. The lower three came from think tank, journalism, and academic security analysis. Institutional status did not predict score.
Top scores
- Faytuks NewsOSINT/news account
- Ehsan SafarnejadIndependent Iran analyst
- David KeyesPublic commentator
Lower scores
- Behnam Ben TalebluFDD Iran Program
- Negar MortazaviJournalist / political analyst
- Andreas KriegKing's College London
Signal Held While Consensus Moved
High scores came from experts who predicted a U.S. strike while the market was pricing that outcome down. A Yes prediction near 17.5 cents carried more signal than a Yes prediction made once the market already leaned Yes.
Case studyTrita Parsi
Parsi scored well because his U.S. strike predictions came early and stayed consistent as the market moved away from that outcome.
“Much indicates now that a US/Israeli war with Iran is imminent.”
January 14, before the market opened and four days after U.S. strike options were reported.
On February 24, with the Yes side near 17.5 cents and diplomacy still dominating the public record, he was still pointing toward war, saying “the risk of war will remain greater than the prospects for a deal.” The score reflects a call record that held across timing, direction, conviction, and market edge.
The Main Failure Mode Was Overweighting the Off-Ramp
Many misses came from experts who saw escalation but gave more weight to diplomacy and restraint. The market reflected the same read, with the Yes side falling from 59 cents to 8.5 cents before the strike was confirmed.
Case studyNegar Mortazavi
Mortazavi's lower score reflected a reasonable read that diplomacy remained active, but that read pointed away from the outcome.
“both sides are interested in a deal and prefer diplomacy over war.”
February 25, with the Yes side near 9.5 cents.
By February 25, the market had nearly priced out a strike and diplomacy still looked active. The off-ramp was real, but the market resolved Yes three days later. Her score was lower because the call pointed toward diplomacy while the outcome moved toward a strike.
How Q Uses the Expert Index
Q uses the Expert Index to calibrate future forecasts. When a high-scoring expert makes a new prediction on a related event market, Q can weight that prediction differently from one made by an expert who tends to trail price, hedge, or overweight a recurring narrative.
The Iran case is one resolved example. As more markets resolve, the record shows who called risk early, who followed consensus, and whose predictions should affect Q's probability while the next question is still open.
Request access to the complete scored record behind the Iran case, including every graded expert prediction.
Request access