Formula
claim_exposure gates. If nothing traded is exposed, there is nothing to be sensitive, so the score is 0.
Variables
claim_exposure — how directly a traded claim is involved
Judge whether a traded claim exists in the world, not whether the article mentions markets. Pick one rung:
On sophisticated investors. A specialist can express almost any view through proxies, contracts or
private markets — so “could someone trade it?” is true everywhere and discriminates nothing. The rung asks
how directly the event attaches to a claim that actually exists. A traded claim is broader than a listed
share: sovereign debt, exchange-traded commodities, credit and contractual claims, an asset freeze, an
insurance exposure, and a major private company with an active secondary market or listed backers all count.
economic_bite — whether something has already happened
Score what has already occurred. Do not forecast, and do not reason about what was priced in.
Grounding
The reasonable-investor materiality test: TSC Industries v. Northway (1976) and Basic v. Levinson (1988); SEC SAB 99 and the 2023 cyber-disclosure rule (Form 8-K Item 1.05); MAR Art. 7(4) with ESMA guidance; ASX Listing Rule 3.1 / GN8; IFRS S1/S2. Our adaptation: those regimes ask a binary — must this be disclosed? We need a graded score, so the two limbs are scored on rungs and averaged. An earlier version multiplied by asurprise term; it was retired
because “how much was already priced in” is a market-state question the coder cannot answer from an article,
and multiplying by it drove nearly every score to zero.
Worked examples
Anthropic’s $1.5bn copyright settlement approved
Nationwide power grid blackout in Havana — why a huge event scores low
magnitude 7, systemic_importance 0.85 —
but almost nothing traded attaches to it. market_sensitivity measures attachment to a traded claim, not
how bad an event is.