A practical guide to a focused manual Polymarket watchlist in TEMIRIN using configured records, explicit market identity, current controls, and human review.
August 3, 2026 · 4 min read
A focused Polymarket watchlist is a human-curated set of contracts selected for close review. “High conviction” should describe the reviewer’s research priority, not a TEMIRIN verdict, predicted win rate, or certainty claim. The admission note should state why the market matters, which unknown could change the view, who owns review, and what condition would remove or downgrade the market.
Limit the list to contracts the owner can actually maintain. A market with no source owner, unread resolution language, or unclear review cadence is not focused simply because it has a strong thesis. A smaller list creates room to inspect source health, trigger timing, portfolio context, and no-action decisions. Capacity should reflect the team’s ability to explain each record, not the largest number a plan permits.
Write the strongest counterargument beside the admission note. The purpose is not to create artificial balance; it is to identify the observation that would genuinely weaken the thesis. A market can remain important while confidence falls, or leave the focused list while its evidence stays in the journal. This distinction keeps watchlist maintenance from becoming a defense of earlier choices.
Add a market by explicit identifier after reading the full question, outcome labels, close time, date window, and resolution authority. Similar titles can hide different thresholds or settlement rules. Record the precise scenario being monitored and retain the market ID in evidence, notes, paper records, and exports so later title changes do not break the research trail.
Give the new watchlist entry a first-observed trigger price and timestamp. That immutable reference explains when the record entered attention; it is not a paper price. Later current prices, bid, ask, spread, and visible depth should carry their own observation times. A large move may change urgency, but it does not prove the original thesis or automatically justify keeping the market on the list.
Choose a compact set of configured sources that can document the market’s actual settlement condition or the evidence needed for review. Store canonical references, expected update patterns, source owner, observation history, and collection health. A cluster of articles quoting one announcement remains one provenance chain. Repetition should not make the contract appear better supported than it is.
Evidence belongs beside the watchlist record only when it carries the verified supported market identifier. Related but unlinked material can remain in the evidence collection for manual investigation. When a source becomes stale, changes purpose, or repeatedly fails, preserve earlier records and change the active configuration deliberately. Do not hide an operational gap behind a generic confidence label.
Refresh the configured public-wallet snapshot before moving a market to the top of the review queue. Visible exposure and portfolio concentration may show that a seemingly attractive contract overlaps an existing position. Retain the address observation time, denominator, incomplete fields, and known coverage gaps. One configured address cannot establish every account, transfer, hedge, or capital commitment.
Apply source and category states, stake cap or maximum-stake override, confidence setting, free-capital percentage, price-move guard, and kill switch consistently across the focused list. A policy result can allow or block a workspace action, while the human note explains why the market remains a research priority. Keeping those layers separate prevents conviction language from overriding an explicit control.
If review proceeds to a paper order, the user supplies the direction, paper price, and notional. Store per-order, rolling twenty-four-hour, per-market exposure, and portfolio-concentration results with the simulation. Preserve blocked requests, rejected reviews, and opportunities that received no paper action. Otherwise the list becomes a highlight reel that hides the moments when uncertainty or controls correctly stopped progress.
At each review cycle, sample markets kept, downgraded, removed, resolved, and left unchanged. Trace source freshness, explicit identifiers, trigger and current observations, public-wallet context, policy state, and contemporaneous notes. Measure whether owners completed the promised cadence and removal rules. The useful outcome is a watchlist whose contents and omissions can be explained, not one that retrospectively appears certain.
Track list hygiene separately from paper performance. Useful measures include overdue reviews, sources in warning state, markets without a current note, removal-rule breaches, and records that retained an unresolved question. These operational measures reveal whether the list is maintainable even during periods when few markets resolve and paper marks provide little feedback.
It describes a user’s research priority and ownership decision, not a certainty score. The note should explain why the market deserves close review and when it should be removed.
A user adds it with the explicit market identifier after reviewing the question, outcomes, close time, and resolution source. The reason and owner should be recorded.
They show which priorities did not progress and why. Including them prevents later journal analysis from covering only accepted paper simulations or favorable market moves.
