Leaderboard numbers look simple; definitions are not. This guide explains how we score stated predictions, what dashboard backtests summarize, and which mistakes make any hit-rate statistic misleading.
Before scoring, translate the claim: asset, direction, start date, end date, and benchmark (absolute, sector ETF, or index). If any piece is missing, the score is undefined—not secretly bullish or bearish.
A horizon is the number of trading days from anchor date T to evaluation date. Changing the horizon after you see the outcome is cherry-picking. InsightMeter stores the horizon used for each scored call.
A directional hit might mean “stock return > 0.” A relative hit might mean “stock return minus sector ETF > 0.” The same forecaster can look brilliant on one definition and mediocre on another. Always read which definition powered the number you see.
If delisted tickers drop out of track records, past accuracy rises artificially. Our methodology aims to retain unresolved or delisted outcomes according to published rules rather than silently deleting failures.
Backtests on the dashboard let you filter date ranges and signal sources to see aggregate metrics under those filters. They are descriptive summaries—useful for orientation, not proof that a strategy would have been profitable after costs, taxes, or slippage.
Free tiers may show top-line scores or limited history; Pro unlocks deeper tables and exports. The scoring rules in this guide apply regardless of tier—only visibility changes.
Vague: “ABC looks cheap and should rip.” Testable: “ABC’s total return exceeds the sector ETF XLY over the next 90 trading days starting 2026-03-01.” Only the second sentence can be scored without inventing hidden assumptions.
Vague: “Smart money loves DEF.” Testable (different object): “Manager M’s reported share count in DEF rose quarter-over-quarter as of 2025-12-31 (13F accepted mid-February).” Notice this is a holdings statement, not a forecast score—and it still needs lag labels.
A 70% hit rate on ten calls is a coin-flip story wearing a suit. Always publish N beside the rate. Prefer longer samples even when the rate looks less flattering. Education rewards calibration more than swagger.
Variance across regimes matters: the same forecaster can look brilliant in a one-way bull tape and ordinary in a choppy year. Segment notes by period without silently dropping embarrassing windows.
Journal the claim on day one, freeze horizon and benchmark, wait, mark hit/miss/void, then review monthly. Link your journal fields to InsightMeter methodology vocabulary so you do not invent private definitions that cannot be audited.
When a live leaderboard and a backtest disagree, write the universe, horizon, and filter differences before preferring the prettier chart. See also the backtest-versus-live guide.
Scores cannot certify character, cannot see undisclosed hedges, and cannot replace primary filings. They summarize history under rules. Keep the risk notice visible: educational materials are not investment advice.
Some claims should be marked unscored rather than forced into hit/miss. Missing horizon, missing benchmark, purely qualitative language (“could be interesting”), or contradictory clauses are refusal cases. Refusing to score is a feature of honest systems.
Delistings and corporate actions need pre-written void or resolution rules. If you improvise after the fact, you recreate survivorship bias under a new name. Methodology should state the rule; your journal should follow it.
Lead with definition: “55% directional hits vs SPY over 90 trading days, N=40, sample 2023–2025, delistings retained as misses per rule.” That sentence is longer and safer than “this guru is elite.”
Ban leaderboard screenshots without the definition caption. If your charting UI cannot show N and horizon, add them in text. Education is allergic to orphan percentages.
Automated matching of claims to outcomes can help at scale, but automation does not remove definitional choices. If the claim parser guesses a horizon you did not intend, the score is about the guess, not the pundit. Review ambiguous parses; document overrides.
InsightMeter describes scoring as rule-based accountability for education. It is not a promise that models found secret alpha. Keep that sentence near any product demo.
Trust a number only after you can repeat its definition in one sentence. Link to our forecast track-record guide for reader workflows and to methodology for data handling.
Evaluating Forecast Track Records Fairly · Backtest vs live forecast scoring pitfalls · Methodology
Scoring is a contract with your future self: freeze definitions, wait, mark outcomes, publish N. Break the contract and you are doing theater with spreadsheets.
Use Start here, the forecast track-record guide, and the journal template as companion reading. Optional Pro tables do not change the contract; they only change how much history you can browse.
If a score cannot be restated in one precise sentence, do not share it. Precision is the product of education-first forecast work.
Learn by topic: Form 4 / insider literacy · Form 8-K & fundamentals · Form D / exempt offerings · 13F / institutional snapshots