Compound Fork — AI pause × Robotaxi
Each cell = a joint scenario "Both branches fire". Cell intensity = total |Δ| across the 200 highest-conviction tradeable predictions vs their unconditional posterior. Joint probabilities approximated via log-odds combination (assumes conditional independence given the prediction — coarse but bounded). Click a cell to drill into the dominant single-fork view.
Pick two fork families
| AI pause ↓ × Robotaxi → | ROBOTAXI_TESLA_2026 prior 40% | ROBOTAXI_NATIONWIDE_2028 prior 45% | ROBOTAXI_MASS_2030 prior 30% | ROBOTAXI_DELAYED prior 20% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AI_PAUSE_2026 prior 5% | 129 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.23 | 131 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.38 | 128 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.02 | 131 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.39 |
AI_PAUSE_2027 prior 10% | 129 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.23 | 131 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.38 | 128 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.01 | 131 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.39 |
AI_PAUSE_2028 prior 10% | 130 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.29 | 132 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.43 | 129 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.07 | 132 claims · Σ|Δ| 19.45 |
NO_AI_PAUSE_5Y prior 75% | 130 claims · Σ|Δ| 18.75 | 131 claims · Σ|Δ| 18.85 | 127 claims · Σ|Δ| 18.46 | 131 claims · Σ|Δ| 18.86 |
Method note
Joint conditional probability is approximated via log-odds combination: logit(P(pred|A,B)) ≈ logit(P(pred|A)) + logit(P(pred|B)) − logit(P(pred)). This is the closed-form Bayesian update assuming A and B are conditionally independent given the prediction. It's correct when the two scenarios act on the prediction through different causal paths; it's pessimistic when they overlap. The exact joint requires running the Gibbs sampler with both scenarios clamped, which would be N×M=16 sampling runs (~12 minutes per refresh) instead of N+M=8 — a 2× cost for higher fidelity.