Superforecaster

If the user's question is vague, clarify before forecasting.

2. Gather Evidence

Run in parallel:

a) Market prior — See check-odds.md to get prediction market consensus. This is your initial anchor. If no markets exist, note that explicitly.

b) Web research — Use WebSearch for 3-5 targeted queries:

• The question itself
• Key sub-questions that would shift the probability
• Recent developments / status quo

For each result, assess relevance (skip paywalled, error pages, stale content). Summarize each source as bullet points preserving dates, numbers, and quotes.

c) Base rate search — Search for the historical frequency of similar events. "How often has [category of event] happened in [relevant timeframe]?"

3. Reason (Structured Scratchpad)

Write out your reasoning following this exact structure:

TIME REMAINING: [duration until resolution]

STATUS QUO: [what happens if nothing changes — this is the most likely outcome]

SCENARIO FOR NO:
- [concrete pathway to No]
- Strength: [weak/moderate/strong]

SCENARIO FOR YES:
- [concrete pathway to Yes]
- Strength: [weak/moderate/strong]

BASE RATE: [X% — historical frequency of similar events]

MARKET CONSENSUS: [X% from check-odds.md, or "no markets"]

KEY EVIDENCE:
- [evidence point 1 — for/against, strength]
- [evidence point 2 — for/against, strength]
- [evidence point 3 — for/against, strength]

INITIAL PROBABILITY: X%

Critical debiasing rules:

• Status quo bias is correct. The world changes slowly. Put extra weight on the status quo outcome. LLMs over-predict dramatic change.
• Clamp to [2%, 98%]. Never assign extreme certainty. You don't know what you don't know.
• Anchor on base rates. Start from how often this type of event happens, then update based on specific evidence.
• Don't anchor on round numbers. 73% is more calibrated than 75%.

4. Critique and Adjust

After your initial probability, challenge it:

• Is this excessively confident or not confident enough?
• What am I missing? What would change my mind?
• Am I anchoring too heavily on one piece of evidence?
• Does my probability reflect the time remaining? (More time = more uncertainty = closer to base rate)
• Am I being swayed by a dramatic narrative over boring base rates?

Adjust if warranted. State what changed and why.

5. Multi-Model Aggregation (Optional, for high-stakes questions)

For important forecasts, get independent predictions from other models using discussion-partners:

Frame the question with ALL context (the partner has zero context). Include:

• The exact binary question and resolution criteria
• Resolution date
• All evidence gathered in step 2
• The base rate

Ask: "You are a professional superforecaster interviewing for a job. Given this evidence, what is the probability of [question]? Walk through your reasoning, then output your final answer as 'Probability: ZZ%'."

Query 2-3 models. Aggregate via median (robust to outliers).

If your solo forecast and the multi-model median diverge by >15 percentage points, investigate why. The disagreement is informative — don't just average it away.

6. Output

## Forecast: [question]

**Probability: X%**

### Evidence Summary
- [key evidence, 3-5 bullets]

### Reasoning
[2-3 sentences on the key drivers]

### Confidence Notes
- Market consensus: [X% or "no markets found"]
- Base rate: [X%]
- Multi-model range: [X%-Y%] (if step 5 was used)
- Key uncertainty: [what could most change this forecast]

### Sources
- [source 1]
- [source 2]

Calibration Principles

These come from Tetlock's superforecasting research and Metaculus tournament winners:

1. Status quo is king. Most questions resolve to the boring default. Overweight it.
2. Update incrementally. Each piece of evidence should move your probability a little, not a lot. Bayesian updates, not vibes.
3. Distinguish confidence from extremity. High confidence in an uncertain outcome is still ~50%. Confidence means your uncertainty estimate is precise, not that the probability is extreme.
4. Time horizon matters. More time = more variance = probabilities closer to base rates. Less time = more certainty = probabilities can be more extreme.
5. Aggregate > individual. Multiple independent forecasts averaged together beat any single forecast. Use markets and multi-model when available.
6. Beware narrative bias. Compelling stories feel more probable than they are. Boring statistical regularity beats vivid anecdote.