Frontier AI Forecasting Has a Measurement Problem: An Audit of Progress Evidence

Quantitative forecasts of frontier artificial intelligence often connect dated targets to trends in benchmark scores, training compute, release time, or expert belief. This paper audits whether the public measurement record supports those connections before another trend is fitted. I construct a frozen, event-centric record through 12 August 2026 with 62 selected systems, 12 versioned benchmarks, seven capability or impact criteria, 144 graded events, 27 source records, and 408 typed relations. The record is an audit sample, not a census. Only seven systems jointly observe estimated training compute and a METR 50 percent task horizon. Training compute is absent for 19 of 27 closed systems, including every selected closed release from 2026, while none of the 35 open-weight systems has a METR horizon observation. Benchmark succession creates a second break: a seven-system link from METR Time Horizon 1.0 to 1.1 has a log-scale slope of 1.206 (95 percent CI 1.021 to 1.390), whereas a six-system MMLU to MMLU-Pro comparison appears shift-like under logit and probit links but not under linear or logarithmic links. The observed bridges have about 80 percent power only for slope departures near 25 percent. Provenance is concentrated: 52 of 71 substantive quantitative events, or 73.2 percent, come from one measurement programme, and 76.1 percent are laboratory releases. A review of 56 methodological and empirical sources identifies 16 complementary measurement directions spanning resources, inference budgets, reliability, agentic work, safety, human preference, field outcomes, and forecast backtesting. No direction supplies a replacement scalar. The result is not that frontier AI forecasting is impossible, but that a defensible dated forecast is a claim about a versioned measurement system with explicit joins, protocols, links, and source dependence, not merely a fitted curve or calendar date.

When do prophets profit in prediction markets?

Prediction markets aggregate dispersed beliefs into prices that act as probabilistic forecasts of uncertain events. Classical theory establishes a clean equivalence between forecasting accuracy and trading profit, but only for the specific automated market maker (AMM) design. However, the largest exchanges today are based on central limit order books in which informed forecasters routinely lose money while uninformed strategies can profit on simple heuristics. We resolve this discrepancy by establishing a formal equivalence between predictive accuracy and profitability. For any strictly proper scoring rule $S$, we exhibit a "proper" betting strategy that depends only on the forecaster's prediction $\mathbf{p}$ and the market price $\mathbf{q}$, and earns positive expected profit whenever $\mathbf{p}$ outperforms $\mathbf{q}$ under $S$ and the market has sufficient liquidity. Moreover, this proper betting is essentially the only strategy with such robust profitability guarantee. The proof rests on a decomposition of expected profit that strictly generalizes the classical AMM guarantee and also explains how strategies can profit without an accuracy edge. Empirically, across thousands of forecasts by AI models, proper betting is the only strategy that reliably converts accuracy into profit, and we further identify systematic forecasting personas and show how the optimal proper strategy varies across them. A month-long live deployment on Kalshi achieves $+80.33\%$ return on investment with a Sharpe ratio of $3.35$.