Past Results

Catalysts whose event has now passed.

Sell The News

Win rate50%1 of 2 traded cards · 2 left out

9 cards

Measured from

Details

PassedWed, 30 Sept 2026, 01:30

HGCopper

China's factory survey returned to expansion at 50.1 and copper barely moved, because the market had already paid for it

Positive

6.5660

+$0.06 to +$0.15 a pound, which is +0.9% to +2.2%

+1.91%High

+0.37%Low

HG result

After the event it went to +1.91% at its highest, and later to +0.37% at its lowest, against the price before China's September official manufacturing PMI.

The news wasMixed

The release itself read positive for copper and was worth almost nothing, because it matched consensus to a tenth. What set the price over the period was negative and unrelated: profit taking from near record highs, a firmer dollar, weak Chinese industrial profit data for August, and an oil rally on 1 October that took the London benchmark down 1.2%.

Measured fromChart

The survey did what this card wanted and the price did not. China's official manufacturing PMI returned to expansion at 50.1 from 49.8, the first reading above the line in three months, and copper gained 0.50% over the full 24 trading hours that followed, from $6.5660 to $6.5990, against an expected 0.9% to 2.2%. The reason is the one the card named in its own headline: consensus was 50.1 and the print matched it exactly, so the expansion the card called an unpaid-for surprise had already been bought. Measured against the $6.8695 the card quoted on 22 September, the close after the news is 3.94% lower.

What we said	What happened	Result
Catalyst confidence 100 out of 100: the National Bureau of Statistics publishes the September manufacturing PMI at 01:30 UTC on 30 September.	Confirmed. The bureau published on schedule at 01:30 UTC on 30 September. The official manufacturing index came in at 50.1 against 49.8 in August, the production sub-index at 51.7 and new orders at 50.5, with the non-manufacturing index at 50.2.	Correct
Market expectations bearish: the survey is "widely expected to show factories still contracting", and the card makes a positive call against that expectation.	Wrong, and this is the error the whole card rests on. Session reporting describes the 50.1 print as matching forecasts exactly. The market was not expecting contraction to continue, it was expecting the return to expansion that arrived, so there was no surprise left in the number for the price to pay for.	Wrong
Priced-in level medium, split two ways: the supply story is heavily priced, but "the Chinese demand half is barely priced at all" and "an upside surprise has not been paid for".	Wrong on the half the card was trading. With consensus at 50.1 and the print at 50.1, the return to expansion was paid for in full before the release. The card concedes as much in its own headline, and the price action is the proof: the contract added 0.50% across the whole 24 trading hours, from $6.5660 before the news to $6.5990 after it.	Wrong
Expected direction positive.	Right inside the window and wrong against the price the card quoted. Copper did rise on the print: $6.5660 before the release, $6.5990 at the end of the reaction window, up 0.50%. But the card went out at $6.8695 on 22 September, and the contract never traded there again. The close after the news is 3.94% below it and nothing since has closed higher.	Partly right
Our Expected Move a rise of $0.06 to $0.15 a pound, which is 0.9% to 2.2%, over one to two sessions, against an average true range of $0.1316 or 1.92%.	Overestimated on the close and reached only at the intraday peak. The contract gained $0.0330 a pound over the reaction window, a little over half the low end of the range and about a quarter of an ordinary day. The high of $6.6915, struck at 14:12 UTC in the American session, was $0.1255 above the pre-news close and the one figure that landed inside the range, and it was given back within hours.	Overestimated
Price-reaction confidence 85 out of 100, though the risks section of the same card writes it as 55.	Too high, and the card could not keep it straight with itself. The reaction was a fifth of one average day on the close. The 55 the risks section names, for the reason it names there, that the American afternoon can overwrite the morning, was the better of the two numbers it wrote.	Too high
Bullish scenario: "the survey prints 50.0 or above", copper takes out $6.8710 "with nothing above it on the chart", a rise of 1.5% to 3% with pre-holiday restocking adding to it.	The trigger fired and the move failed. The survey printed 50.1, which is the condition this scenario names, and the contract got no closer to the signal price than $6.6915, 2.59% below it. The level the scenario was aiming at was never tested, in the window or since.	Trigger met, move failed
Neutral scenario, named as the most likely single outcome: the survey prints in the high 49s, "copper does little on the print and the session turns on the American data that evening".	Right about the price and wrong about the input. The survey printed 50.1, not the high 49s, and copper still did almost nothing, 0.50% over a full trading day. The session did turn on the American hours exactly as written: the window high came at 14:12 UTC, after the US releases, and the contract then fell back to $6.5990 and kept going, with the London benchmark retreating 1.2% on 1 October as a firmer dollar and an oil rally took over.	Partly right
Bearish scenario: the survey drops to 49.0 or below and copper falls 1.5% to 3%, with the Shanghai closure giving anyone wanting to cut risk one morning to do it in.	Did not fire as written, and the fall it described arrived anyway. The survey was 50.1, nowhere near 49.0. Copper nonetheless ended the reaction window 3.94% below the card price, on profit taking from near record highs, a firmer dollar and weak Chinese industrial profit data rather than on a bad survey.	Did not fire as written
Result needed for a big move: "a print at or above 50.0. Nothing else in the plausible range changes what anybody believes."	The condition was met and the move never came. 50.1 is at or above 50.0 by the card's own test, and the contract moved 0.50% on it. That is the cleanest refutation on this card: the one number it said would change what the market believed turned out to be the number the market had already agreed on.	Condition met, the move never came
Technical bias bullish "without qualification", with resistance at $6.8710 and nothing above it, first support at the 20 day average of $6.5796, and the stated invalidation "a daily close back below $6.5796".	Invalidated before the catalyst even landed. The last close struck before the news was $6.5660, which is already under the card's own invalidation level, and no daily close since has recovered it, 1 October settling at $6.4820. The resistance never got a second test. RSI on the December contract is 44.3 against the 64.0 the card printed, and the price sits below its 20, 50 and 100 day averages instead of above all four.	Invalidated
Main risks: pre-holiday profit taking on a contract that has run 7.82% in a week "would make this card wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with the analysis", and "the American afternoon can overwrite the morning".	Correct on both, and they are what happened. Copper fell from near record highs on profit taking and a firmer dollar before the release, which is why the pre-news close was 4.42% below the card price. Then the American session supplied the window high and took it straight back. The dollar headwind the card also named behaved as described: the dollar index closed 0.17% higher at 101.37 on 30 September, its best close in two months.	Correct
What the market may be missing: the physical signals contradict the survey, metal outside the United States is genuinely scarce, and accessible stocks are drawing while the COMEX pile sits behind a tariff wall.	The facts held and got stronger, and they paid nothing. Shanghai exchange copper stocks fell 17.8% on the week to 38,744 tonnes, the lowest since January 2024, which is tighter than the building Shanghai inventory this card reported and a sharper version of its own argument. Reporting on the session credits support to "improving factory activity in China and ongoing tightness", with ING saying constrained supply should keep prices supported through the fourth quarter. None of it produced a move.	Partly right
Spread structure contango, with the December contract below March 2027 and May 2027 and about 1.5% of carry over three months from the front.	Correct and still correct. On 2 October the October contract settled at $6.5350, December at $6.5495, March 2027 at $6.6520 and May 2027 at $6.7205. December to March is 1.57%, which is the three month carry the card quoted, and the shape held through a 4% fall in the flat price.	Correct
Managed money positioning long-heavy but "thinning fast", with longs down more than fourteen percent in a week while the price rose, so "this advance is not being carried by speculative length, so there is less of it to unwind if the survey disappoints".	Backwards, and it mattered. The CFTC report for 22 September, the card's own publication date, shows managed money longs at 96,421 against 13,899 shorts, with longs up 12,717 on the week and shorts down 4,699, on open interest of 301,657. Reporting puts that net long at a five and a half year high. The speculative crowd was piling in, not leaving, and the profit taking that followed is what there was to unwind.	Wrong
What else lands that day: crowded, but "the competing events land after the reaction rather than beside it, so the Asian move is clean and the American afternoon can overwrite it".	Correct, and the best-judged section on the card. The print was alone in Asian hours, the first price after it was $6.6445, the window high came at 14:12 UTC once the American calendar was open, and the low of $6.5900 came at 00:34 UTC the next morning. The structure of the day went exactly as the card laid it out.	Correct
Other contracts affected: silver same direction and weaker, gold weaker again and less reliable because it often does the opposite, soybeans same direction and weakest.	Mixed, and ranked the wrong way round. Over the same session copper rose 0.50%, silver fell 0.94%, gold rose 0.17% and soybeans fell 0.37%. Silver, named as the closest follower, was the one that went against copper hardest, and gold, named as the least reliable, was the one that tracked it.	Mixed
Estimated duration one to two days, expected move impact medium.	Overestimated. What the print did was spent inside the first fourteen hours and gone by the next morning. The contract settled 1 October at $6.4820, below the $6.5660 it stood at before the survey was published, and the London benchmark retreated 1.2% that day.	Overestimated

Price Table	Price (USD per pound)	Change from signal	Change from lowest (regular session)	Change from close before China's September official manufacturing PMI
After signal
Price at analysis22 Sep 2026, 18:19	6.8695	—	+4.62%
Sat 26, Sun 27 - no trading
Lowest price28 Sep 2026, 04:00	6.5660	−4.42%	—
Highest price22 Sep 2026, 18:19	6.8695	+0.00%	+4.62%
Sat 26, Sun 27 - no trading
Price before China's September official manufacturing PMI28 Sep 2026, 04:00	6.5660	−4.42%	+0.00%
After China's September official manufacturing PMI (30 Sep 2026, 01:30 UTC)
Price after China's September official manufacturing PMI30 Sep 2026, 01:30	6.6445	−3.28%	+1.20%	+1.20%
Lowest price1 Oct 2026, 00:34	6.5900	−4.07%	+0.37%	+0.37%
Highest price30 Sep 2026, 14:12	6.6915	−2.59%	+1.91%	+1.91%
Price 24h after China's September official manufacturing PMI1 Oct 2026, 02:29	6.5990	−3.94%	+0.50%	+0.50%
Current price2 Oct 2026, 20:59	6.5790	−4.23%	+0.20%	+0.20%

Recorded after the event and not edited since. Past moves are not a forecast of future ones.

PassedWed, 30 Sept 2026, 12:30

GCGold

Core PCE lands with gold 21% below its January high and a market that has stopped trading it off real yields

Mixed

4179.7

A firm core print takes it down $30 to $70 an ounce, which is -0.7% to -1.6%. A soft one lifts it $30 to $70, which is +0.7% to +1.6%.

+1.71%High

−0.25%Low

GC result

After the event it went to +1.71% at its highest, and later to −0.25% at its lowest, against the price before core PCE report.

The news wasPositive

Measured fromChart

August core PCE came in softer than expected, at 3.0% on the year and 0.2% on the month, and traders cut the odds of a rate rise on 28 October to about a third from roughly two thirds the week before. Gold popped on the print and handed it straight back, because the third GDP estimate was revised up in the same minute and the ten year Treasury yield reached a 24-year high that session.

What we said	What happened	Result
Catalyst confidence 100 out of 100: the BEA publishes the August personal income and outlays report at 12:30 UTC on 30 September.	Confirmed. The Bureau of Economic Analysis published it at 12:30 UTC on 30 September 2026, on the date and at the hour its own calendar carried, with core PCE at 0.2% on the month and 3.0% on the year.	Correct
Mixed direction: positive if core PCE comes in below the 3.4% consensus, negative if it comes in above it or the monthly rate prints 0.3%.	The positive branch fired and did not pay. Core PCE printed 3.0% on the year against a consensus reported at 3.3%, and 0.2% on the month against 0.3%, so the condition the card set for a rise was met. The December contract opened the release minute at $4226.0, reached $4251.1 five minutes later, and ended the reaction window at $4197.1, which is $28.9 below where it started it.	Right branch, no payoff
Action: Watch, with the card saying the useful question was "not which way to lean but how much weight to give the print at all".	The right call, and the one line on the card that reads better after the event than before it. Neither branch of the mixed case paid, the reaction never reached the card's own minimum, and the two biggest price events around the release had nothing to do with it.	Correct
Our Expected Move of $30 to $70 an ounce either way, which is 0.7% to 1.6%, with expected move impact low.	Smaller than the floor of the range. The contract gained $25.1 from the release minute to its high five minutes later and gave back $28.9 by the end of the window, so neither leg reached the $30 the card set as its minimum. Measured end to end, from the last close the feed carries before the news at $4179.7 to $4197.1, the window moved 0.42%. The "low" impact reading was right and still generous.	Overestimated
Price-reaction confidence 85, with the card stating gold "closed the session about 0.7% lower near $4,156" and traded "near $4,182 on 1 October".	Right about spot gold and wrong about the contract. Those are spot figures: spot fell 0.70% to $4155.93 on 30 September and traded near $4180.59 on 1 October. The December contract the card says every figure on it refers to closed that session higher rather than lower, and the reaction window ended at $4197.1. The size of the move was read correctly and the instrument was not, in the one place where that choice flips the sign of the day.	Right size, wrong instrument
Market expectations bearish, with consensus for August core PCE at 3.4% on the year, up from July's 3.3%, and the Cleveland Fed nowcast agreeing at 3.40%.	A tenth high, and the base moved underneath it. Reporting puts the consensus at 3.3%, and July was revised down from 3.3% to 3.0% in the same release, so the annual rate held at 3.0% rather than falling from anywhere. Employ America reads the monthly figure at 25 basis points, one basis point from rounding to the 0.3% consensus. The card had the direction of the surprise right and overstated how much cooling was in it.	Partly correct
Same-day status crowded: ADP fifteen minutes earlier and the third GDP estimate in the identical minute, so "whatever this contract does by the close will have three plausible authors".	The best call on the card. ADP private payrolls came in at 90,000 against a 68,000 consensus and the third estimate of second quarter GDP was revised up 0.7 point to 2.2%, both hawkish, both inside the same half hour as a soft inflation print. Reporting credits the stronger growth with outweighing the softer inflation, and the ten year Treasury yield reached a 24-year high just over 5.3% that session.	Correct
Main risks: attribution first, since "a reader can be right about the inflation print and still see the price do something else"; second, that the broken link to real yields "can mend", most likely on a hot print with the labour number agreeing.	Both landed, and together. The print was read correctly and the price did something else, and the old model reasserted itself in the same hours: a soft inflation reading arrived while the ten year yield made a 24-year high, and the metal gave back its pop. The mending came through the mirror of the route the card named, a soft print with the growth and labour numbers disagreeing rather than a hot print with them agreeing.	Correct
Bullish scenario: a below-consensus core print is "the first real sign of cooling in the Fed's own gauge after 65 months above target", real yields ease and gold rises $30 to $70, with the larger end requiring the labour number fifteen minutes earlier to point the same way.	Condition met, mechanism absent, and the card's own gate on the larger end held. The annual rate did not cool, it held at 3.0% on a revised July, and real yields went the wrong way with the ten year Treasury yield at a 24-year high just over 5.3%. ADP printed 90,000 against 68,000, so the labour number pointed the opposite way and the card was right to rule the larger end out.	Condition met, payoff ruled out
Neutral scenario, named the most likely single outcome: core at the 3.4% consensus, "gold moves less than half a percent on the print and the session is decided by quarter end flows instead".	Wrong on the number and right on the price. Core landed four tenths below the figure the card quoted rather than on it, and the contract still moved 0.42% across the window, inside the half a percent this scenario described. The session was decided by something other than the print, as the scenario said, though by the growth and labour data rather than by quarter end flows.	Correct on the move, wrong on the print
Bearish scenario: core firms above the 3.4% consensus or the monthly rate prints 0.3%, locking in 28 October, and gold falls $30 to $70.	Did not fire, and came closer than the headline suggests. The monthly rate was 0.2% and sat a basis point from the 0.3% that would have triggered this branch, but the published figure was the soft one: odds of a rise on 28 October fell to 34.9% rather than locking in, from about 65% the Friday before.	Did not occur
"A reading at or below 3.0% would be the first evidence that the tariff impulse has peaked", and the move either way "would be a multiple of the range quoted here rather than inside it".	The card named 3.0%, got 3.0%, and the big move did not arrive. The reaction peaked $25.1 above the release minute, a fraction of the $30 to $70 range rather than a multiple of it, and the window closed below the price it opened at. This is the clearest miss here: the card's own stated trigger for an outsized move was hit exactly and the price barely registered it.	Incorrect
Other contracts: silver moves the same direction as gold and more of it, with platinum weaker and palladium weakest.	Right on silver in both directions. On the 28 September selloff spot silver fell about 4.7% against gold's 3.19%, and on 2 October silver gained 1.19% against gold's 0.95%, the higher beta the card described each time.	Correct
Priced-in level high, and the card's central argument that "gold has stopped paying attention to the thing this release is supposed to move it through".	Vindicated, with the sign reversed. A four tenths downside miss on the Fed's own gauge took October hike odds to 34.9% from about 65% on 25 September, and the contract could not hold $25 of it. Two days later a 29,000 payrolls print against a consensus near 90,000 to 100,000 took it to a $4259.0 high and it closed the session at $4157.0, giving the whole move back again. The decoupling is real. The card assumed it would hold the price up, and it works both ways.	Correct, with the sign reversed
Technical bias neutral, price coiled inside $4273.3 to $4461.8, with "a daily close outside the band, in either direction" the thing that would create a bias.	Invalidated two days before the event, downward. The contract closed at $4168.4 on 28 September, below the $4273.3 low the card called the only floor the last month had built, on 229,031 contracts, the heaviest session in the window. RSI(14) now reads 33.8 against 47.3 on the card, and the price sits 18.0% of the way up its 52 week range against 35.9% when written.	Neutral bias broke before the catalyst
Spread structure contango and unremarkable, "the cost of carrying metal at a 4% policy rate plus storage and nothing more", with no backwardation anywhere on the curve.	Still true after a fall of this size. February 2027 sits $36.8 above December and April 2027 $65.9 above it, essentially the carry the card measured, and no month on the strip trades under the one in front of it. A selloff this large with the curve unchanged says the move was financial rather than physical, which is what the card argued.	Correct
Positioning long-heavy but thinning: 145,804 managed money longs against 10,832 shorts for 8 September, easing to 142,394 by 15 September.	Correct, and more lopsided than before. The CFTC report for 22 September shows 135,699 managed money longs against 8,310 shorts, better than sixteen to one, with longs down 6,695 on the week against open interest of 412,800. The trimming continued and the ratio widened, because the short side came down with it.	Correct
Estimated duration of the reaction, 1 to 2 days.	Overstated. The high came at 12:35 UTC, five minutes after the release, and the window ended below the price the release minute opened at. There was nothing left to decay over a day, let alone two.	Overestimated

Price Table	Price (USD per troy ounce)	Change from signal	Change from lowest (regular session)	Change from close before core PCE report
After signal
Price at analysis22 Sep 2026, 18:11	4394.7	—	+6.07%
Sat 26, Sun 27 - no trading
Lowest price28 Sep 2026, 04:00	4143.1	−5.73%	—
Highest price22 Sep 2026, 04:00	4414.1	+0.44%	+6.54%
Sat 26, Sun 27 - no trading
Price before core PCE report29 Sep 2026, 04:00	4179.7	−4.89%	+0.88%
After core PCE report (30 Sep 2026, 12:30 UTC)
Price after core PCE report30 Sep 2026, 12:30	4226.0	−3.84%	+2.00%	+1.11%
Lowest price1 Oct 2026, 00:54	4169.4	−5.13%	+0.63%	−0.25%
Highest price30 Sep 2026, 12:35	4251.1	−3.27%	+2.61%	+1.71%
Price 24h after core PCE report1 Oct 2026, 13:29	4197.1	−4.50%	+1.30%	+0.42%
Current price2 Oct 2026, 20:59	4172.1	−5.07%	+0.70%	−0.18%

Recorded after the event and not edited since. Past moves are not a forecast of future ones.

PassedThu, 24 Sept 2026

ZSSoybeans

Trump and Xi meet with soybeans within three cents of a 52 week high and the tariff cut already agreed in July

Negative

13.1750

-$0.13 to -$0.33 a bushel, which is -1.0% to -2.5%

+0.78%High

−0.63%Low

ZS result

After the event it went to +0.78% at its highest, and later to −0.63% at its lowest, against the price before Trump-Xi summit.

The news wasNegative

Measured fromChart

The summit produced a broad US-China tariff-cut plan and a truce extension to January 2027, but soybeans were left out of the detailed $30 billion tariff list, exactly the outcome the card's bearish scenario described as removing the reason for a nine-percent rally without anything getting worse. The contract closed the 24 hours after down 1.41% and kept falling into a fourth straight losing session by 28 September, down 3.71% from the signal price and through both the $13.00 support and the 20-day moving average the bullish bias needed to hold.

What we said	What happened	Result
Catalyst confidence 95 out of 100: the summit happens.	Confirmed. Xi Jinping's Washington visit and the Trump summit proceeded on 24 September, producing a joint plan to cut tariffs on about $30 billion of goods and an extension of the trade truce to 10 January 2027.	Correct
Expected direction negative, on price-reaction confidence of 55 out of 100.	Correct. The 24-hour close was $13.1025, down 1.41% from the signal price, and the contract kept falling afterward: reporting on 28 September described a fourth straight down session, the longest losing streak since June, with the price at $12.7975, down 3.71%.	Correct
Our Expected Move -$0.13 to -$0.33 a bushel, -1.0% to -2.5%, over two to three sessions.	The 24-hour close, -1.41% ($0.1875), landed inside the band. By the fourth session the move had grown to -3.71% ($0.4925), past the top of the stated range, consistent with the losing streak reported rather than a single two-to-three-day reaction.	Correct within the window, exceeded slightly beyond it
Bearish scenario: "the agricultural piece is handed to officials to finish, or it appears in the communique without a date... the reason for a rally... has been removed," a move of -2% to -3.5%.	This is close to exactly what happened, and reporting used almost the same language. Soybeans were "notably absent" from the detailed $30 billion tariff-cut list the two governments announced, and one Bloomberg headline read "Trump-Xi summit fails to boost China purchase expectations," with another citing the summit as lacking details on US-China trade deals.	Correct
Neutral scenario: leaders extend the truce, restate the 25 million tonne commitment, confirm the July arrangement, "everything the market already believed, now official," then the contract "leaks lower as positioning trims into month end and the harvest."	The informational half of this happened, truce extended to January 2027, existing Chinese purchases restated as over halfway to the annual target, but soybeans specifically got no fresh deliverable in the detailed tariff plan, and the price did lean into "leaks lower" rather than staying flat, with the fourth-day slide beyond what a pure confirmation would suggest.	Informational content correct, price magnitude leaned more bearish
Result needed for a big move at the bottom of the range: "a summit that ends with no agricultural deliverable and no date on the tariff cut."	Close to what happened, and arguably starker: soybeans were left out of the detailed $30 billion tariff-cut announcement altogether, not merely dated ambiguously.	Correct
Technical invalidation: "a daily close below the 20 day moving average at $12.9489, which has not happened since the middle of August."	Broken. By 28 September the price was $12.7975, decisively below both the $13.00 support and the $12.9489 20-day average named as the bullish bias's invalidation level.	Correct
Managed money positioning long-heavy at more than eight to one: "this is the figure the negative call rests on, because it is what decides how much selling an unremarkable outcome produces."	Consistent with a sustained, multi-day unwind rather than a single-day event: the four-day losing streak reported by 28 September fits a long-heavy position trimming steadily on a summit outcome that did not deliver soybeans specifically, rather than a sharp one-day flush.	Correct

Price Table	Price (USD per bushel)	Change from signal	Change from lowest (regular session)	Change from close before Trump-Xi summit
After signal
Price at analysis22 Sep 2026, 17:17	13.2900	—	+1.37%
Lowest price23 Sep 2026, 15:40	13.1100	−1.35%	—
Highest price22 Sep 2026, 17:15	13.3000	+0.08%	+1.45%
Price before Trump-Xi summit23 Sep 2026, 18:15	13.1750	−0.87%	+0.50%
After Trump-Xi summit (24 Sep 2026)
Price after Trump-Xi summit24 Sep 2026, 00:00	13.1000	−1.43%	−0.08%	−0.57%
Lowest price25 Sep 2026, 00:33	13.0925	−1.49%	−0.13%	−0.63%
Highest price24 Sep 2026, 11:27	13.2775	−0.09%	+1.28%	+0.78%
Price 24h after Trump-Xi summit25 Sep 2026, 00:59	13.1025	−1.41%	−0.06%	−0.55%
Sat 26, Sun 27 - no trading
Current price28 Sep 2026, 14:41	12.8025	−3.67%	−2.35%	−2.83%

Recorded after the event and not edited since. Past moves are not a forecast of future ones.

PassedWed, 30 Sept 2026, 16:00

ZCCorn

USDA Grain Stocks found 2.095 billion bushels of corn, above every trade estimate, and corn fell 21 cents

Negative

5.2200

-$0.10 to -$0.26 a bushel, which is -1.9% to -4.9%

+0.57%High

−5.17%Low

ZC result

After the event it went to +0.57% at its highest, and later to −5.17% at its lowest, against the price before USDA Quarterly Grain Stocks report.

The news wasNegative

Measured fromChart

The report was the surprise the card described and the price did what the card said it would do, only harder. USDA counted 2.095 billion bushels of corn on 1 September against a survey average of 1.924 billion and a top estimate of 2.005 billion, so every guess in the trade was too low. December corn settled the session at $5.0075, down 21 and a quarter cents or 4.07%, kept falling into the next day to a low of $4.9500, and closed the reaction window at $4.9625, 4.93% below the $5.2200 it carried into the release and 5.92% below the $5.2750 the card quoted. The direction, the mechanism, the trigger size and the invalidation level were all called in advance; the move was a little larger and a good deal more durable than the card allowed for.

What we said	What happened	Result
Catalyst confidence 100 out of 100: the National Agricultural Statistics Service publishes the Grain Stocks report at 16:00 UTC on 30 September 2026, on its own calendar date.	Confirmed. NASS published the Quarterly Grain Stocks report, alongside the Small Grains Summary, at 16:00 UTC on 30 September 2026. Corn held on farms and in commercial storage on 1 September came to 2.095 billion bushels, 787.3 million on farms and 1,307.8 million off them, 35% above a year earlier and the largest for the date in seven years.	Correct
Expected direction negative, on the grounds that a count above the implied figure would arrive at a market priced near a three year high with managed money very long.	Correct, and by the mechanism the card named. Corn was $5.2500 at the moment of release and closed the reaction window at $4.9625, a fall of 5.92% from the $5.2750 the card quoted and 4.93% from the $5.2200 it closed at the day before. The low of the window was $4.9500.	Correct
Market expectations bullish, with the average trade estimate at 1.918 billion bushels in a range from 1.843 billion to 2.005 billion, and the count said to be about 177 million bushels above that average.	Right in substance, checked against the published surveys rather than against the card. The survey average was 1.924 billion bushels, with Reuters at 1.918 billion and Bloomberg at 1.911 billion, and the pre-report range ran from 1.860 billion to 2.005 billion. So the card's average was 6 million light and its low end 17 million too low. The top of the range it quoted, 2.005 billion, is exactly right, and that is the figure the whole call rested on: at 2.095 billion the count cleared the highest estimate in the survey by 90 million bushels and the average by 171 million.	Right in substance, low end slightly off
Our Expected Move a fall of $0.10 to $0.26 a bushel, which is 1.9% to 4.9%, within the session and the one after it.	Direction right and size at the top of the range, just past it. From the $5.2200 close before the release to $4.9625 at the end of the reaction window is $0.2575 and 4.93%, which clears the card's upper bound by a whisker. Measured from the card's own $5.2750 the fall is $0.3125 and 5.92%, outside the range. The single session the card pointed at was inside it: December corn settled 30 September at $5.0075, down 21 and a quarter cents or 4.07%.	Direction correct, size slightly underestimated
Expected move impact: medium.	Understated. Against the fourteen day average true range the card measured at $0.1043, or 1.98% of the price, the 30 September session ran from $5.2625 down to $4.9875, a span of $0.2750, about two and a half ordinary days of range inside one. The 498,214 contracts traded that day were more than double the twenty day average the card recorded.	Understated
Bearish scenario: the count comes in above 1.95 billion bushels, corn falls through the 20 day average at $5.1387, and the selling continues toward $5.05.	All three parts landed, the last of them through rather than toward. The count was 2.095 billion, the 20 day average gave way in the same session, and the 30 September settle of $5.0075 was below the $5.05 the card named as the destination rather than short of it. This is the best called paragraph on the card.	Correct
Neutral scenario, described as the most likely single outcome: the count lands within two percent of the implied 1.91 billion bushels and the move is under one percent either way.	Did not happen. The count was 185 million bushels above the implied figure, 9.7% away from it, nearly five times the two percent band this scenario drew. The card named the neutral case as most likely and then put its direction on the bearish one, and the bearish one is what arrived.	Did not fire
Result needed for a big move: a count more than three percent away from the implied 1.91 billion bushels, roughly 60 million bushels, with the downside version moving further than the upside one.	Met with room to spare, and the move followed. The count missed the implied figure by 185 million bushels, three times the threshold the card set, and the price did what the card said a surprise of that size would do. This is the clean version of this test: condition named in advance, condition met, move delivered.	Correct
Managed money positioning long-heavy: 491,034 long contracts against 76,575 short for a net long of 414,459 on the CFTC report for 8 September, called the single most important figure on the card.	Verified exactly against the CFTC disaggregated report for 8 September 2026: managed money long 491,034, short 76,575, net long 414,459. By the 29 September report, the Tuesday before the release, that had been trimmed to 439,843 long against 58,623 short, a net long of 381,220, so the crowd was 33,239 contracts thinner going in than the card's figure implied. Still the dominant feature of the market, and the card read both its direction and its weight correctly.	Correct
Technical bias bullish, with the bias invalidated by a daily close below the 20 day moving average at $5.1387.	Invalidated on the day, at the level named. December corn settled 30 September at $5.0075, through the 20 day average rather than at it, and has not closed back above it: the 2 October settle was $4.9725. The fourteen day RSI on the dated December contract now reads 34.9 against the 67.3 the card recorded. The card wrote plainly that its chart and its call genuinely disagreed, and the call won.	Correct, and correctly flagged as the losing side
Estimated duration: within a session.	Too short. Most of the fall did land in the session, but it did not stop there. The low of the reaction window, $4.9500, came on 1 October rather than 30 September, the window closed at $4.9625, and the 2 October settle of $4.9725 was still below the 30 September settle of $5.0075 with none of the fall given back.	Too short
Same day events clear: nothing of comparable weight for corn, with quarter end possibly bringing rebalancing flows into the afternoon.	Correct. The Small Grains Summary landed inside the same release and belonged to wheat, which fell 17 cents, and soybean stocks at 315.1 million bushels against 323 million expected were mildly bullish rather than competing for attention. No coverage of the session attributes any part of corn's move to quarter end flows.	Correct
Main contract affected: corn rather than soybeans, because the release speaks to soybeans through a smaller share of their balance sheet and the reading would be weaker.	Correct, and by a wide margin. Corn fell 4.07% on the session while soybeans slipped 4 and three quarter cents to $12.93, under half a percent, on a stocks count that came in below expectations rather than above. Reporting described the day as a corn-specific surprise rather than a grain-wide one, which is the card's own reasoning in someone else's words.	Correct
What the market may be missing: the tension between the two halves of the September WASDE, with the stocks count the first hard check on a demand assumption the market had not priced.	Right, and this is the most useful thing on the card. Feed and residual use is a residual worked out by subtraction, so grain found in the bins has to come out of demand, and reporting puts the implied overestimate at roughly 230 million bushels heading into the 9 October WASDE. The card pointed at the hole in the balance sheet ten days before the count found it.	Correct
Inventory level tight, inventory trend drawing, with a 2026/27 stocks-to-use ratio of 9.68%.	Overtaken on the old crop half. At 2.095 billion bushels the carryout into the new marketing year was a seven year high for the date and 35% above a year earlier, which is not what tight describes, and the stocks-to-use arithmetic has to be redone from a larger opening balance. The new crop claims behind the label, a yield of 178.5 bushels an acre and exports of 3.3 billion bushels, were not tested by this release and remain open to the October WASDE.	Overtaken on the old crop
Spread structure: not established, on the stated grounds that the price feed serves the front month only and the second month was unavailable.	An abstention that was not necessary. The feed serves the dated December contract, ZCZ26, with 503 daily bars behind it, so the curve was available to check at the time of writing. Nothing was predicted wrongly here, but a reader was told a structure was unknowable when it was not.	No claim made, and one was available
Seasonality unsupportive, with harvest supply weighing on the front month regardless of the balance sheet.	Correct, and still working after the report. Corn fell again on 2 October, and coverage of that session attributes the move to the harvest advancing rather than to anything left over from the stocks number.	Correct

Price Table	Price (USD per bushel)	Change from signal	Change from lowest (regular session)	Change from close before USDA Quarterly Grain Stocks report
After signal
Price at analysis18 Sep 2026, 18:19	5.2750	—	+2.48%
Sat 19, Sun 20 - no trading
Lowest price25 Sep 2026, 04:00	5.1475	−2.42%	—
Highest price22 Sep 2026, 04:00	5.4450	+3.22%	+5.78%
Sat 26, Sun 27 - no trading
Price before USDA Quarterly Grain Stocks report29 Sep 2026, 04:00	5.2200	−1.04%	+1.41%
After USDA Quarterly Grain Stocks report (30 Sep 2026, 16:00 UTC)
Price after USDA Quarterly Grain Stocks report30 Sep 2026, 16:00	5.2500	−0.47%	+1.99%	+0.57%
Lowest price1 Oct 2026, 15:07	4.9500	−6.16%	−3.84%	−5.17%
Highest price30 Sep 2026, 16:00	5.2500	−0.47%	+1.99%	+0.57%
Price 24h after USDA Quarterly Grain Stocks report1 Oct 2026, 16:59	4.9625	−5.92%	−3.59%	−4.93%
Current price2 Oct 2026, 18:19	4.9725	−5.73%	−3.40%	−4.74%

Recorded after the event and not edited since. Past moves are not a forecast of future ones.

PassedWed, 30 Sept 2026, 14:30

HOHeating Oil

EIA inventories showed a 2.3 million barrel distillate draw against a forecast near zero, and diesel jumped

Positive

4.7655

A draw above 2 million barrels lifts it $0.08 to $0.18 a gallon, which is +1.8% to +4.0%.

+0.48%High

−4.45%Low

HO result

After the event it went to +0.48% at its highest, and later to −4.45% at its lowest, against the price before EIA weekly petroleum status report.

The news wasPositive

Measured fromChart

The report was a genuine surprise and the contract had already paid for it. Distillate stocks fell 2.251 million barrels against a consensus draw of 0.190 million, the bullish scenario the card rated second most likely, and November diesel finished the 24 hour window at $4.638, up 2.45% from the $4.527 the card quotes and squarely inside its +1.8% to +4.0% range. But the contract was at $4.7655 five minutes before the release and peaked at $4.7941 an hour before it, so the move the card sized was already in the price. What the report itself produced was a 2.68% fade.

What we said	What happened	Result
Catalyst confidence 100 out of 100: the EIA publishes the Weekly Petroleum Status Report for the week ending 25 September at 14:30 UTC on 30 September.	Confirmed. The report was published on schedule at 14:30 UTC on 30 September 2026, covering the week ending 25 September.	Correct
The report itself: distillate fuel oil inventories fell 2.3 million barrels to 105.2 million against expectations of a draw near 190,000 barrels, with crude stocks up and gasoline stocks down in the same report.	Every figure checks out. Distillate stocks fell 2.251 million barrels to 105.2 million against a consensus draw of 0.190 million, crude rose 0.922 million to 427.3 million against an expected draw of 0.264 million, and gasoline fell 1.684 million to 204.4 million against an expected draw of 0.485 million. The distillate draw was roughly twelve times consensus, which is as large a surprise as this series produces.	Correct
Bullish scenario: distillate stocks draw by more than 2 million barrels with utilisation still falling from maintenance, putting the EIA sub-100 million forecast in sight within weeks.	Both halves fired. The draw was 2.251 million, above the 2 million threshold, and refinery utilisation fell a further 1.5 percentage points to 92.5% as crude runs dropped 554,000 barrels a day. This is the scenario the card rated below the neutral one, and it is the one that happened.	Correct
Neutral scenario: a draw of around half a million barrels, in line with the season, described as "the most likely single outcome".	Wrong by a factor of four and a half. The draw was 2.251 million barrels, not around half a million, so the outcome the card named as most likely was the one furthest from the print.	Wrong scenario named most likely
Bearish scenario: distillate stocks build by 1 million barrels or more with exports staying low, reading as the export debate already keeping diesel at home.	Did not happen on either leg. Stocks drew rather than built, and distillate exports rose to 1.529 million barrels a day in the week to 25 September from the 1.331 million the card quoted, so refiners were sending more abroad rather than less.	Did not fire
Expected direction positive, and Our Expected Move of $0.08 to $0.18 a gallon, which is +1.8% to +4.0%, on a draw above 2 million barrels.	The number landed and the mechanism did not. Measured from the $4.527 the card quotes, the contract stood at $4.638 when the 24 hour window closed, up 2.45%, or just over eleven cents, which sits in the middle of the card's range. But the contract was already at $4.7655 five minutes before the release, up 5.27%, having peaked at $4.7941 an hour earlier. The whole of the card's move was in the price before the report existed, and what the report produced was a fade.	Range hit, mechanism wrong
Price-reaction confidence 85 out of 100, on the card's own account that "US diesel futures extended their gains after the report, the expiring front contract 4.5% higher at $5.1175 a gallon, and the November contract this card follows traded above the $4.527 it quotes before easing to about $4.60 on 1 October."	The card graded itself on the wrong contract. The 4.5% and the $5.1175 belong to the expiring October contract, which stopped trading that session, and the card states plainly that every figure on it refers to November. November did not extend gains after the report: the first print once the release was public was $4.7654, a hundredth of a cent below the $4.7655 standing at 14:25, the post-release peak of $4.7885 is 0.48% above that last pre-release price, and from there it fell to $4.638 by the close of the window, 2.68% below where it was when the report landed. The "easing to about $4.60 on 1 October" also undersells it by about four cents.	Misreports its own outcome
Expected move impact low and estimated duration 1 to 2 sessions: "it should fade within one or two sessions, because a weekly inventory figure is a supply reading and the next one arrives seven days later."	Correct, and faster than that. The high of the whole window was $4.7941, struck an hour before the release, and by 12:30 UTC on 1 October the contract had been down to $4.5536, within a cent of where the card found it. The window closed at $4.638 and the contract kept sliding into 2 October. One session was enough.	Correct
Main risks, first risk: "the report is simply not what moves November on Wednesday", with a single Iran headline capable of moving crude several percent and the October expiry in the same session able to distort trade in the nearest months.	This is the line the card got most right, and it undercuts the rest of the card. The report was a twelve-fold surprise and still was not what moved November, because the move had happened in the overnight and morning session before it on tight product supply and on crude firming after the President denied he was willing to ease sanctions on Iran. Crude rose about 1% that session while November diesel had already added more than five.	Correct, and it beat the card's own call
Technical bias neutral, with a close above the 20 day average at $4.6416 reclaiming it and $4.8294 next, and the bias invalidated by a daily close outside the $4.3789 to $4.6416 band.	The band broke upward and then closed back inside it. November settled its 30 September session at $4.6881, above the $4.6416 the card named, so the breakout level was cleared, but $4.8294 was never reached: the furthest the contract got was $4.7941. Two sessions later it had closed back inside the band. Neutral was the right word for where this ended up.	Correct
Priced-in level medium, and "the day is crowded. The report will have to be large to be the thing that moves November by the close."	Right, and the condition was met without the consequence following. The report was large, far larger than the card's own 2 million barrel threshold, and it still was not the thing that moved November by the close. The contract gave back about eight cents between the release and the settlement.	Correct
What the market may be missing: distillate exports have already turned down from 1.765 million barrels a day in August to 1.331 million in the week to 18 September, stocks are building faster than the season, and an export ban would be bearish for a contract priced in New York Harbor.	The contrarian read did not survive the week. Exports rebounded to 1.529 million barrels a day and stocks drew 2.251 million barrels, wiping out most of the 3.244 million three week build the thesis rested on. No ban was announced either: the Politico report of a 90 day halt was denied by the White House on 23 September. The underlying logic that trapping barrels at home is bearish for this contract is sound, and the evidence the card offered for it being already underway was one week of noise.	Thesis not confirmed
Inventory trend building, against the season, and inventory level tight at 12% below the five year average.	The level held and the trend reversed. Stocks at 105.2 million are more than 13% below the five year average, so tight is right, but the 2.251 million barrel draw put the building trend into reverse in the first week after the card called it.	Level correct, trend reversed
Managed money positioning balanced: long 35,142 and short 25,705 in New York Harbor diesel futures on 22 September, with shorts up 3,178 on the week.	Verified exactly against the CFTC disaggregated petroleum report. The 29 September report puts managed money long 35,805 and short 22,860, with the long up 663 and the short down 2,845 on the week, which back-solves to the 35,142 and 25,705 the card quotes. Net length rose into the release rather than falling.	Correct
Spread structure backwardation and steep, with the expiring October contract $0.2338 above November.	Correct and it steepened. October went off the board at $5.1175, about 43 cents above November's $4.6881 settlement for the same session, against the 23 cents the card measured two days earlier. The front of this curve got scarcer, not looser.	Correct

Price Table	Price (USD per gallon)	Change from signal	Change from lowest (regular session)	Change from close before EIA weekly petroleum status report
After signal
Price at analysis28 Sep 2026, 17:42	4.5270	—	+6.20%
Lowest price29 Sep 2026, 11:45	4.2627	−5.84%	—
Highest price30 Sep 2026, 13:30	4.7941	+5.90%	+12.47%
Price before EIA weekly petroleum status report30 Sep 2026, 14:25	4.7655	+5.27%	+11.80%
After EIA weekly petroleum status report (30 Sep 2026, 14:30 UTC)
Price after EIA weekly petroleum status report30 Sep 2026, 14:30	4.7654	+5.27%	+11.79%	−0.00%
Lowest price1 Oct 2026, 12:30	4.5536	+0.59%	+6.82%	−4.45%
Highest price30 Sep 2026, 14:30	4.7885	+5.78%	+12.33%	+0.48%
Price 24h after EIA weekly petroleum status report1 Oct 2026, 15:29	4.6380	+2.45%	+8.80%	−2.68%
Current price2 Oct 2026, 20:59	4.5624	+0.78%	+7.03%	−4.26%

Recorded after the event and not edited since. Past moves are not a forecast of future ones.

PassedThu, 24 Sept 2026, 14:30

NGNatural Gas

EIA storage report tests a natural gas surplus the price may already have absorbed

Mixed

3.174

A build above consensus takes it down $0.06 to $0.15, which is -2.1% to -5.2%. A build below consensus lifts it +$0.06 to +$0.15, which is +2.1% to +5.2%.

−1.07%Low

+6.96%High

NG result

After the event it went to −1.07% at its lowest, and later to +6.96% at its highest, against the price before EIA weekly natural gas storage report.

The news wasPositive

Measured fromChart

The storage report itself was almost exactly the neutral outcome the card described, a 53 Bcf injection landing inside the consensus range with no real surprise. The price did nothing like the "under two percent" the neutral scenario predicted, though: natural gas closed the 24 hours after the report up 9.86% and peaked at 16.59%, driven by TC Energy's Columbia Gas Transmission pipeline in Appalachia declaring force majeure, an outage entirely separate from the catalyst the card was written about.

What we said	What happened	Result
Catalyst confidence 98 out of 100: the report happens on schedule at 14:30 UTC.	Confirmed. The EIA published the report at 14:30 UTC on 24 September as scheduled, showing a 53 billion cubic foot injection for the week ending 18 September.	Correct
Mixed direction: negative if the injection comes in well above consensus, widening the surplus; positive if it comes in below the five-year average.	Neither fired. Reporting puts the actual injection at 53 Bcf against a 51-54 Bcf consensus range that had not been published when the card was written, essentially a dead-on match rather than a surprise in either direction.	Report itself was a non-event
Our Expected Move -2.1% to -5.2% on an above-consensus build, or +2.1% to +5.2% on a below-consensus one.	Overtaken by roughly three times the upper end. The price was already $3.174, up 9.00%, at the moment of release, and closed the 24 hours after at $3.199, up 9.86%, having peaked at $3.395, up 16.59%, on a report that landed in line with consensus rather than as a surprise.	Far underestimated
Neutral scenario: "the injection lands close to whatever consensus settles at... a move of under two percent," with the market going back to watching the first cold forecast.	The storage half of this happened exactly as described, a dead-on match to consensus, but the price move was nowhere near under 2%. Reporting attributes the surge to TC Energy's Columbia Gas Transmission pipeline in Appalachia declaring force majeure over a mechanical issue, alongside sliding production, producing what one source called the biggest single-day gas price gain since January, a trigger entirely separate from the storage report.	Storage half correct, price half wrong
Bullish scenario: the contract clears the 100-day average at $2.945 and the move continues toward $3.05.	Cleared and then blown through by a wide margin. The price was already above $2.945 before the report even landed and reached as high as $3.395, well past the $3.05 the bullish case described as its target, though for the pipeline-outage reason above rather than a below-consensus storage number.	Level cleared, magnitude far exceeded
Main risks: this is a supply story the price may have already absorbed, and weather is the largest override, since "a single cold forecast for October can override any storage number, and forecasts move faster than this report does."	Right about the shape of the risk and wrong about which one hit. It was not a cold forecast that overrode the report but a supply-side outage, the Appalachia pipeline force majeure, which the card did not name specifically but which fits its own general warning that something other than the storage number could dominate.	Right principle, different trigger
Technical breakout level: "a close above the 100 day average at $2.945 would be the first evidence the base is a turn," with the 200-day average at $3.231 the level above that.	Both cleared. Coverage of the session describes natural gas futures surging above the 200-day moving average, nearly a 17% jump from 21 September, matching the technical framework the card laid out almost exactly, just far more violently than the card's own move sizing expected.	Correct
Result needed for a big move: "an injection more than about fifteen billion cubic feet away from consensus in either direction."	Did not happen, and a big move came anyway. The injection landed inside the consensus band, not fifteen Bcf from it, which shows the card's named condition for a big move was not the only route to one; an unrelated supply outage supplied the size the storage number did not.	Condition not met, move happened regardless

Price Table	Price (USD per million BTU)	Change from signal	Change from lowest (regular session)	Change from close before EIA weekly natural gas storage report
After signal
Price at analysis18 Sep 2026, 21:00	2.912	—	+3.30%
Sat 19, Sun 20 - no trading
Lowest price21 Sep 2026, 18:30	2.819	−3.19%	—
Highest price23 Sep 2026, 12:00	3.223	+10.68%	+14.33%
Price before EIA weekly natural gas storage report24 Sep 2026, 14:25	3.174	+9.00%	+12.59%
After EIA weekly natural gas storage report (24 Sep 2026, 14:30 UTC)
Price after EIA weekly natural gas storage report24 Sep 2026, 14:30	3.174	+9.00%	+12.59%	+0.00%
Lowest price24 Sep 2026, 14:30	3.140	+7.83%	+11.39%	−1.07%
Highest price24 Sep 2026, 17:46	3.395	+16.59%	+20.43%	+6.96%
Price 24h after EIA weekly natural gas storage report25 Sep 2026, 15:29	3.199	+9.86%	+13.48%	+0.79%
Sat 26, Sun 27 - no trading
Current price28 Sep 2026, 14:38	3.156	+8.38%	+11.95%	−0.57%

Recorded after the event and not edited since. Past moves are not a forecast of future ones.

PassedThu, 1 Oct 2026, 14:30

NGNatural Gas

EIA storage report lands with the natural gas surplus halving in three weeks and the winter premium already in the curve

Mixed

2.997

An injection below 55 Bcf lifts it $0.06 to $0.14 per million BTU, which is +1.9% to +4.5%. One above 70 Bcf takes it down $0.06 to $0.14, which is -1.9% to -4.5%.

−2.84%Low

+0.93%High

NG result

After the event it went to −2.84% at its lowest, and later to +0.93% at its highest, against the price before EIA weekly natural gas storage report.

The news wasMixed

A 64 Bcf injection was smaller than the seasonal norm and tightened the remaining surplus, which is supportive, but it was almost exactly expected and left stocks 2.4% above the five-year average.

Measured fromChart

EIA reported a 64 Bcf injection, almost exactly the 63 Bcf market estimate. The storage surplus over the five-year average narrowed from 95 Bcf to 79 Bcf, but November gas showed no lasting reaction to an outcome already inside the card's neutral range.

What we said	What happened	Result
Catalyst confidence 97 out of 100: EIA would publish the storage report for the week ending 25 September at 14:30 UTC on 1 October.	Confirmed. EIA released the report in its regular slot and put Lower 48 working gas at 3,415 Bcf after a 64 Bcf injection.	Correct
Expected direction mixed, with no position before the event and the neutral 55 to 70 Bcf outcome described as the most likely single result.	The neutral case occurred. The 64 Bcf injection was almost exactly the published 63 Bcf market estimate, and November gas moved from $2.997 immediately before the report to $2.995 at the end of the reaction window.	Correct
A sub-55 Bcf injection would lift November by $0.06 to $0.14, while one above 70 Bcf would lower it by the same amount.	Neither directional trigger fired. The report printed 64 Bcf, and the $0.002 end-to-end decline was far smaller than the directional range, as the card's neutral scenario implied.	Correct conditional forecast
The market guide was a 63 Bcf injection, below a roughly 78 Bcf five-year norm, so the storage surplus should keep shrinking.	The injection was 64 Bcf. EIA reported 3,415 Bcf in storage, 79 Bcf above the 3,336 Bcf five-year average, down from a 95 Bcf surplus one week earlier.	Correct
The Mountaineer Xpress outage leaned the weekly injection smaller, but a small number could be dismissed as a temporary pipeline effect.	The injection did come in below the seasonal norm, but only 1 Bcf from the market estimate. The report itself does not identify how much of the difference came from the outage, so that attribution cannot be settled from the storage data.	Plausible, not measurable
The storage cushion was shrinking quickly but remained normal, with the winter concern priced more heavily into December and January than November.	EIA still classified stocks within the five-year range and measured them 2.4% above the five-year average. The report therefore confirmed tightening without establishing a shortage, which is the distinction the card made.	Correct
Price-reaction confidence 50 out of 100 because weather forecasts and the pipeline restart could matter more than an in-line storage figure.	That caution was justified. Market reporting described no material reaction to the as-expected injection and attributed the later decline to bearish short-term weather forecasts.	Correct
Impact medium, with a normal reaction of $0.06 to $0.14 and an estimated duration of one to two sessions.	Overstated for the catalyst. The contract finished the measured window only $0.002 below its pre-report price. It did trade down to $2.912 overnight, but the report was in line and contemporaneous reporting tied the drift to weather rather than to a storage surprise.	Overestimated
Technical bias neutral inside a $3.042 to $3.211 band, invalidated by a daily close outside it.	The lower boundary failed. November finished the report day near $2.967 and the reaction window at $2.995, both below $3.042, after reaching $2.912 overnight.	Bias invalidated lower
A result outside 45 to 80 Bcf was needed for a large move.	The 64 Bcf result stayed well inside that band and produced no lasting event move. The forecast correctly ruled out a large storage-driven reaction.	Correct

Price Table	Price (USD per million BTU)	Change from signal	Change from lowest (regular session)	Change from close before EIA weekly natural gas storage report
After signal
Price at analysis28 Sep 2026, 17:52	3.102	—	+5.22%
Lowest price1 Oct 2026, 09:25	2.948	−4.96%	—
Highest price28 Sep 2026, 19:20	3.180	+2.51%	+7.87%
Price before EIA weekly natural gas storage report1 Oct 2026, 14:25	2.997	−3.38%	+1.66%
After EIA weekly natural gas storage report (1 Oct 2026, 14:30 UTC)
Price after EIA weekly natural gas storage report1 Oct 2026, 14:30	2.996	−3.42%	+1.63%	−0.03%
Lowest price2 Oct 2026, 06:37	2.912	−6.13%	−1.22%	−2.84%
Highest price2 Oct 2026, 14:36	3.025	−2.48%	+2.61%	+0.93%
Price 24h after EIA weekly natural gas storage report2 Oct 2026, 15:29	2.995	−3.45%	+1.59%	−0.07%
Current price2 Oct 2026, 20:59	3.039	−2.03%	+3.09%	+1.40%

Recorded after the event and not edited since. Past moves are not a forecast of future ones.

PassedFri, 2 Oct 2026, 12:30

SISilver

US jobs report lands with silver down half from its January peak and speculators still long more than three to one

Negative

61.715

-$1.20 to -$2.80 an ounce, which is -1.9% to -4.5%.

PendingMarket still trading

—

PassedSun, 4 Oct 2026

BZBrent Crude Oil

OPEC+ sets a November quota it cannot fill, days after Saudi barrels found a way around Hormuz

Negative

99.29

-$1.50 to -$4.00 a barrel, which is -1.5% to -4.0%

Pending

—