In section 1 of your findings, the “Expected” column of the table is misleading. It assumes that probabilities within each bucket are uniformly distributed (or more generally, symmetrically distributed around the center of the bucket’s range).
A more faithful Expected value would be the average over each market’s probability within a given bucket. This is the true rate that perfectly calibrated markets would resolve at.
I suspect that this is the cause of the significant discrepancy between the Expected and Actual resolution rates near the 0% and 100% extremes.
In section 1 of your findings, the “Expected” column of the table is misleading. It assumes that probabilities within each bucket are uniformly distributed (or more generally, symmetrically distributed around the center of the bucket’s range).
A more faithful Expected value would be the average over each market’s probability within a given bucket. This is the true rate that perfectly calibrated markets would resolve at.
I suspect that this is the cause of the significant discrepancy between the Expected and Actual resolution rates near the 0% and 100% extremes.