Missing economic data and prediction-market settlement

On December 16, 2025, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published the November Employment Situation report. It contained the first October payroll estimates, even though the October report itself had been cancelled during the federal shutdown. October's unemployment rate remained absent. BLS did not collect October observations for the household survey that produces the rate, either during the shutdown or afterward. BLS employment release, household-survey account.

An economic calendar could show the cancelled report and its successor without telling you which statistic had recovered. An event contract depends on whether the particular input it requires was published.

When a contract asks whether an economic number clears a threshold, a missing observation leaves the normal comparison without an input. It cannot be counted as a missed threshold. The contract's provisions for missing data determine what happens next.

As of October 9, 2026, BLS plans to omit October 2026 year-over-year CPI changes for indexes whose October 2025 values are unavailable. The release covering October 2026 is currently scheduled for November 10 at 8:30 a.m. Eastern. BLS guidance, question 16, release calendar.

The historical examples explain the publication problem. Four Polymarket US templates illustrate responses within one exchange, including an earlier period's statistic, settlement at last fair market prices, and exchange review. The comparison uses 2026 document versions observed on October 9; their applicability to a 2025 position or a particular current listing remains unverified. A separate Kalshi CPI example connects a publicly displayed outcome with a notice and a reproducible formula. The analysis is limited to these documents and the retained page evidence, without reconstructing traders' payments or estimating how common these practices are.

A cancelled jobs report left two different gaps

Payroll employment and unemployment appear together in the Employment Situation but come from different surveys. The establishment survey supplies payroll estimates while the household survey supplies the unemployment rate. Their ability to recover from a disruption need not be the same.

In 2025, September's Employment Situation moved from October 3 to November 20. The October release, originally scheduled for November 7, was cancelled. BLS later included initial October establishment estimates with the November report on December 16. Its account of the household survey confirms that no October CPS estimates are available. Revised publication calendar, December release, CPS shutdown explanation.

The later report supplied October's initial payroll estimate while leaving its unemployment rate unavailable. Following the publication calendar alone would miss that difference. Assigning zero to an unavailable observation would also misrepresent it.

The selected examples below separate a delayed publication, data recovered in another release, unavailable data, and a replacement release. “Days” measures the distance between publication dates. It does not measure when an exchange settled or when a trader could withdraw money.

Statistic or scheduled slot	Original date	Later availability	Calendar days
September 2025 CPI	Oct. 15	Oct. 24, 2025	9
September 2025 payrolls	Oct. 3	Nov. 20, 2025	48
October 2025 payrolls	Nov. 7	Dec. 16, 2025, in a later report	39
October 2025 unemployment rate	Nov. 7	Unavailable	Not applicable
October 2025 headline CPI	Nov. 13	Unavailable	Not applicable
November 2025 all-items CPI-U, seasonally adjusted one-month change	Dec. 10	Unavailable in the Dec. 18 release	Not applicable
Q3 2025 GDP, advance slot	Oct. 30	Dec. 23, 2025, replacement initial report	54
Q3 2025 GDP, second slot	Nov. 26	Same Dec. 23 replacement report	27

The eight rows describe selected statistics and scheduled release slots. The GDP rows share one replacement report. Sources and date arithmetic are in the methods companion.

The November CPI release makes the distinction especially clear. It arrived on December 18, eight days after its scheduled date, but Table A still lacked the seasonally adjusted one-month change for all-items CPI-U. The release instead reported a seasonally adjusted two-month increase of 0.2% from September to November and a 12-month increase of 2.7% before seasonal adjustment. Monthly figures for some components were available, but the all-items comparison remained missing when the report arrived. November CPI release, Table A.

An observation that was never collected requires attention to the contract's missing-data provisions. Depending on the applicable terms, the contract might wait for an eligible observation, reach a deadline, accept a defined substitute, or enter review.

The number needs an identity

“October inflation” leaves several questions unanswered. It can mean data published during October or data describing October. It can refer to an index level, a monthly change, or a year-over-year change. A reported figure can also belong to a different series or adjustment convention from the one a contract names.

Start with the release, which is the publication carrying the information. Then identify the statistic inside it, including its region, measure, and adjustment status. The reference period tells you which month or quarter the statistic describes. Its vintage tells you which version is eligible, such as the first official publication or a named GDP estimate. Finally, the condition specifies the comparison, including the threshold, precision, and treatment of equality.

Each part can change the answer without changing the headline. A November report can contain October observations, and a later database value can differ from the first published figure. The seasonally adjusted November 2025 unemployment rate was 4.6% in the December 16 release. On January 9, 2026, BLS's annual update of seasonal factors revised it to 4.5%. The FRED series inspected on October 9 also showed 4.5%. Initial release, January revision Table A, FRED unemployment series.

Under a hypothetical at least 4.6% condition, the first published figure meets the threshold and the revised figure does not. The payroll and unemployment templates' delayed-release clauses use the first value reported for the specified period before expiration. Their earlier-period fallback clauses leave a separate vintage question, discussed below. A data repository can show the correct latest value while the contract requires a different version.

The PM-US CPI template makes the measure and adjustment convention explicit parameters. It distinguishes the first official, non-preliminary publication from provisional figures and later revisions. Its GDP template instead allows the specific estimate to be selected in the contract terms. The unemployment template likewise identifies the particular rate, rather than accepting any unemployment measure from the same agency. CPI terms, pp. 2–3, GDP terms, pp. 2–3, unemployment terms, pp. 2–3.

The source check must identify the observation that satisfies the contract's definition.

CPI can recover a series without publishing every comparison

The CPI disruption adds another layer because a percentage change depends on more than one index value.

BLS could not collect October 2025 survey data. It used carried-forward values within its calculation process and resumed publication with November data. Although there was no October CPI news release, BLS recovered most of the nonsurvey data retrospectively and published some October component values where possible. BLS shutdown FAQ, questions 2–6.

Internal imputation and publication answer different questions. A statistical agency can need an intermediate value to continue a series while declining to publish that month's index as an observed result. A trader cannot treat the calculation process as permission to fill an unavailable official value into a contract.

A 12-month percentage change compares the current month with the same month a year earlier in the same index series:

12-month change = (current index / index 12 months earlier - 1) × 100

Both index values must use the same reference base. Changing the denominator to an adjacent month changes the period being measured. BLS calculation guide.

Consider an invented series with an October index of 309 and a September index of 308. Its one-month increase is about 0.325%, calculated as (309 / 308 - 1) × 100. The 12-month calculation also needs the previous October's index.

If the previous October were known to be 300, the 12-month increase would be 3%. If that observation is unavailable, the annual comparison remains unavailable even though the current index and monthly comparison can be calculated. These are invented values for one consistent series.

One missing month can affect later comparisons with different lengths. The unavailable October all-items index left November without its published one-month change. BLS also said it would omit December 2025 two-month changes for cities on an even-month publication schedule. For the rent panel, BLS explained that April 2026's one-month rent change would effectively use the sixth root of a 12-month price relative instead of the usual sixth root of a six-month relative. The length of the comparison changed while the one-month transformation remained. BLS shutdown FAQ, questions 7–8.

The planned omission in the November 10 release extends the same gap to annual comparisons for October 2026 data. That guidance applies to indexes whose October 2025 values are unavailable. Other series and comparison periods still need their own checks.

Why calculating a substitute does not settle the question

A missing denominator invites an estimate. You can interpolate between nearby observations, carry forward an earlier value, or use a model. The arithmetic can be internally consistent without producing the official statistic required by a contract.

BLS itself describes a geometric-mean approximation for missing CPI observations when the parties to a contract agree to use it. The approximation and any percentage changes calculated from it remain unofficial. BLS missing-data factsheet.

BLS's own internal calculations show why that distinction matters. For the commodities and services survey, it carried September prices forward into October. For rent, the carried-forward observations came from April's housing panel. To update seasonal factors, it approximated missing October index values using the geometric mean of September and November. The all-items October index remained unpublished despite these internal calculations. BLS shutdown FAQ, questions 2, 5–6, and 12.

An exchange's use of an alternative depends on the applicable contract terms and procedures as well as the calculation.

An alternative source also needs to provide the equivalent statistic. A nearby series, a different adjustment convention, or a private estimate does not become equivalent just because the number looks reasonable. The PM-US CPI template excludes ordinary third-party estimates from its normal payout criterion, while its no-data branch checks for an equivalent statistic from an alternative designated source. The other templates have different source lists, so eligibility must be read from each one. CPI terms, pp. 3–4.

GDP changed the release identity

BEA's Q3 2025 example concerns the name and identity of the publication as well as its date. The agency issued an initial estimate on December 23. Its release states that this replaced both the advance estimate scheduled for October 30 and the second estimate scheduled for November 26. BEA replacement release.

One document replaced two scheduled vintages. The 54-day interval from the advance slot and the 27-day interval from the second slot describe two paths to that same publication.

For a contract naming a particular GDP estimate, the replacement must match the required release as well as the quarter. The measure also matters, including real versus nominal GDP, annualized versus non-annualized growth, and the chosen estimate.

The PM-US GDP template makes the designated release part of the settlement input and excludes other provisional estimates and later revisions from that normal criterion. Applying it to a replacement-release scenario requires the applicable contract terms and any exchange determination about the replacement. GDP terms, pp. 2–3.

Calling the replacement “the advance estimate” for convenience would decide the identity question before reviewing the contract or the exchange's determination.

Four templates, different responses to missing data

The four PM-US documents cover the economic families in these examples: nonfarm payrolls, unemployment, CPI, and GDP. Holding the exchange constant makes their differences easier to see. Each template leaves parameters to the specific contract, and their absence-of-data clauses divide into two groups while retaining an outcome-review alternative.

Template	Ordinary delay provision	Missing-data or cancellation alternative
Payrolls	First period value reported before expiration; default expiration backstop three months after scheduled release	Most recent earlier period with available data, or outcome review
Unemployment	Same timing structure as payrolls	Most recent earlier period with available data, or outcome review
CPI	Extend expiration to actual release, unless contract terms specify otherwise	Last fair market prices, or outcome review; missing-data clause also checks for an equivalent statistic from a designated alternative source
GDP	Extend expiration to actual release of the specified data	Last fair market prices, or outcome review, if publication is cancelled or indefinitely delayed

Condensed from the payroll, unemployment, CPI, and GDP terms. The alternatives are discretionary. Contract-specific terms and applicable modifications can change the result.

The source lists also differ. The payroll and unemployment templates name government agencies as primary sources and include Trading Economics and repositories or aggregators such as FRED as secondary sources. The CPI and GDP templates' default lists name official statistical agencies. Their authority to designate additional or substitute sources does not make every available estimate eligible. For a US CPI contract, an agency listed for another country does not by itself supply an equivalent US statistic; applicable contract terms or a designation would have to establish the eligible source. Payroll terms, p. 2, unemployment terms, pp. 2–3, CPI terms, pp. 2–4.

A repository reproducing an official series does not create its missing observation. The retained FRED unemployment series showed no October 2025 value, even while displaying November's revised figure. Source availability and vintage therefore need separate checks.

The difference in fallback mechanisms is substantive. A previous-period substitution still evaluates an economic statistic against the contract condition, but uses an earlier observation. A fair-price settlement instead requires a price determination. A review leaves the outcome to the stated process. None of these descriptions means “automatically refund the purchase price,” and none supplies a universal 50-cent payout.

For payrolls, read the fallback alongside the template's definition of its underlying: the change in total nonfarm payroll employment. The earlier-period branch therefore points to that period's reported payroll change, not its employment level or a newly calculated change across the missing months. The fallback clause does not separately specify which vintage of the earlier figure to use. That detail needs the applicable terms or an exchange determination rather than an assumption about the latest database value. Payroll terms, pp. 2–3.

A hypothetical previous-period decision

Suppose a single-month unemployment contract asks whether the specified rate is at least 4.2%. Assume its terms follow the reviewed template, the requested month's figure remains unavailable at the applicable expiration, and the most recent earlier period with data reports exactly 4.2%.

If the exchange chooses the previous-period alternative, that substituted figure meets the condition. Under the assumed $1 binary payout, a Yes contract pays $1 and a No contract pays $0. The payment in this example uses the earlier period's 4.2% rate; the missing month's rate remains unknown.

Change the otherwise identical condition to above 4.2% and the same substituted observation fails it. Yes then pays $0 and No pays $1. Equality matters after the eligible input is selected, just as it does in an ordinary release.

These outcomes are conditional examples. The exchange can choose review instead of the earlier-period branch. A relevant release before expiration, a different contract term, or an applicable modification would change the scenario. The template does not let a trader choose the favorable branch or infer the exchange's future choice.

A hypothetical fair-price decision

Now assume a different contract permits settlement “at last fair market prices” and that the price determined for Yes is $0.62. For an illustrative $1 complementary contract, that means $0.62 to Yes and $0.38 to No. The $0.62 price is stipulated; the templates do not provide a method that produces it.

A holder of 100 Yes contracts receives $62. If those contracts cost $0.40 each, the $40 purchase cost leaves a $22 gain before fees. If they cost $0.70 each, the $70 purchase cost leaves an $8 loss before fees. The settlement amount is the same in both cases because it does not reconstruct each holder's entry price.

This explains why a fair-price outcome cannot be described as a refund. The phrase does not establish a near-last-trade valuation method or show that $0.62 would be appropriate. Review remains an alternative, and no fee reversal is assumed.

A specified formula can still sit beside review powers

Kalshi's retained CPI template provides a different default mechanism from the PM-US CPI template. When data are unavailable at expiration, it calculates a substitute from the latest available CPI index and its value 12 months earlier. Its unemployment template instead specifies the last available month's data. Both documents also preserve outcome-review discretion and authority to determine payouts when an expiration value cannot be determined. Kalshi CPI terms, p. 2, unemployment terms, p. 2.

The October 2025 CPI page provides a concrete illustration. When read on October 9, 2026, its notice specified September as the fallback input month even if November data became available before expiration. October CPI page.

Using the September period named by the notice and the published unadjusted all-items indexes, the retained CPI template's formula gives:

100 × [(September 2025 index / September 2024 index)^(1/12) - 1]
= 100 × [(324.800 / 315.301)^(1/12) - 1]
≈ 0.248%

The notice required conversion to a percentage and rounding to one decimal place. Applying that rounding to the calculation gives 0.2%, matching the page's displayed outcome of 0.2.

These calculation inputs are the published all-items CPI-U indexes before seasonal adjustment, with the same 1982–84 reference base. The page notice does not identify the exact series or numerical inputs used in execution. September 2025 release, September 2024 release.

The formula produces a constant monthly rate implied by a 12-month index ratio. October's actual one-month observation remains missing. The retained template's normal underlying is a seasonally adjusted monthly change, which BLS reported as 0.3% for September. That published measure and the rate implied by the annual ratio answer different mathematical questions.

The notice's publication date, the exact governing version of the undated terms PDF, and the actual settlement and payment dates remain unverified. Together with the unidentified execution inputs, these gaps limit what we can conclude about what a holder knew before settlement or when payment occurred.

The useful contrast is the specificity of the substitute. The retained Kalshi CPI terms describe a formula, while the PM-US CPI template offers last fair market prices or review in its cancellation branch. Both preserve review powers. Reading only the common CPI headline would miss that difference in the response to unavailable data.

Expiration is only one part of the timing

Unless the payout criterion provides otherwise, the payroll and unemployment templates use a default expiration date tied to the earlier of the official release and three months after the scheduled release if no data arrive. Specific contract terms and applicable modifications also matter. CPI and GDP use a specified-date structure with delay provisions that can extend expiration. The documents generally set settlement for no later than the following day, unless outcome review begins.

If review begins, the normal settlement timetable gives way to the review process. The three-month provision therefore does not promise an unconditional date for receiving funds.

The September 30 PM-US rulebook lets designated exchange officers initiate outcome review before settlement. Rule 10.4 ties settlement to the date the review concludes and an outcome is determined. Rule 10.3 permits specified modifications, including expiration adjustments, with notification requirements. Neither provision supplies a fixed maximum review duration in the text examined here. Rulebook, rules 10.3–10.4, printed p. 80.

The document hierarchy also matters. Rule 1.5 gives product specifications priority over conflicting general rules and specific contract terms priority over conflicting product specifications. The rulebook defines a qualifying modification under Rule 10.3 as becoming part of the contract terms when issued. This makes applicable modifications part of the input to a contract comparison, alongside the listing and template. A notice should not be treated as such a modification merely because it appears on an exchange website. Rulebook, definition of Modification, printed p. 8, and rule 1.5, printed p. 13.

The agency's publication time, the contract's expiration, and the exchange's settlement process each need separate evidence. The historical table measures publication delays only; the duration of any holder's capital commitment or wait for payment remains outside its scope.

Read the missing-data clause before the number goes missing

The useful sequence begins with a precise description of the normal input. Name the statistic, geography, adjustment convention, reference period, eligible release, and comparison. Then locate the source hierarchy and the provisions for delay, missing data, expiration, and review. That makes it possible to distinguish a recoverable publication delay from an absent observation or a substituted release.

An economic forecast or calculated estimate can inform a trade while leaving the contract's required observation unavailable. Where the terms offer several fallback alternatives, the exchange's choice also remains unresolved.

Two contracts can share an economic headline and a statistical agency while requiring different inputs or specifying different responses to missing data. Comparing them requires matching both the normal observation and the exceptional settlement provisions. A calendar date alone cannot establish that they ask the same question or will pay on the same basis.

The methods companion records the source versions, clause locators, selected cases, and reproducible calculations. Historical publication facts, prospective agency guidance, and hypothetical contract examples are kept separate throughout the analysis.