The Method
How AFOS Analytics Works
A didactic guide to navigating the platform
Introduction, Why AFOS exists
Every day you open a newspaper and read "Poll X says candidate Y has 37%". In another, "32%". Which one to believe?
The problem: electoral polls measure declared intent, what a person says they will do. But intent changes, polls have bias, and in Brazil this has gone wrong several times (2018 and 2022 had major surprises).
AFOS's solution: instead of trusting ONE source, the platform cross-references three independent sources in real time:
| Source | What it measures | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 🎯 Prediction market, bets (Polymarket) | Where real people bet real money on who will win | When someone risks US$ 10,000, they don't lie out of vanity |
| 📊 Polling institutes (17+ in Brazil, Datafolha, Quaest, AtlasIntel, Paraná Pesquisas, CNT/MDA, Veritá, and others) | Declared intent from sampled audiences | Captures traditional electorate sentiment |
| 📰 Live news (400+ sources via Google News, major portals, agencies) | Current narrative | Explains why the numbers changed |
When these three sources agree, the forecast is robust. When they diverge, it's a sign something is moving, and that's extremely valuable information.
How data is cross-referenced (the method)
AFOS doesn't do formal statistics (regression, Bayesian models). It does something different and more useful day-to-day: a structured narrative cross-reference with explicit rules.
Golden rule: convergence vs divergence
For each important question (e.g., "who wins the first round?"), the platform compares the values from the 3 sources:
| Situation | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Polymarket × Poll difference ≤ 3pp | Convergence, robust signal, consensus |
| Difference between 3-5pp | Neutral zone, mild tension |
| Difference > 5pp | Divergence, something is changing, one source sees what the other doesn't |
The gold is in divergence
When Polymarket and polls diverge, the reason is investigated:
- Poll above, market below → either the poll is outdated/biased, or the market knows something (imminent operation, leaking scandal)
- Market above, poll below → either the market anticipates a turnaround, or it's speculation with low volume
Real example, the Candidate D surge and retreat
Candidate D (regional governor) jumped on Polymarket "3rd place" from 8.5% to 19.5% (↑11pp in 24h).
- Polls hadn't captured this yet
- News mentioned: "Candidate D may be Candidate B's running mate"
- AFOS reading: the money saw before the polls did
Candidate D fell to 19% (↓0.5pp) and the presidential market retreated to 2.25% (↓0.85pp).
- Market deflated the bet
- The political move likely didn't materialize
- Those who bet too fast, lost
Those who read AFOS daily arrive at conclusions earlier, because they see the movement while it's happening, not after.
Understanding ↑↓pp variations
"pp" = percentage point. It's the difference between two percentages. Different from "percent".
Example: Candidate A had 40%, today has 42%. They went up 2 percentage points (2pp). In relative terms, that's a 5% growth (2 on top of 40).
Why small variations matter
1. Liquidity: the presidential Polymarket has US$ 54 million at stake. A 0.8pp change means roughly US$ 432 thousand was repriced. It's not opinion, it's real financial commitment.
2. Speed: 0.8pp in 1 day seems small. If the pace holds: 5.6pp per week; 24pp per month; complete reversal in 5 months. Small and persistent movement beats large and isolated movement.
3. Anticipation: when the market moves, it moves before the newspaper consensus. 48 hours later, you'll read analysts saying what the market already said.
Interpretation table
| Variation | What it means | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| ±0.0 to ±0.3pp | Market noise | Ignore |
| ±0.4 to ±1.0pp | Light movement, emerging direction | Check if it persists 2-3 days |
| ±1.0 to ±3.0pp | Significant movement | Investigate today's news |
| ±3.0 to ±5.0pp | Jump, something big happened | Top priority |
| ±5.0pp+ | Disruptive event | Re-read the whole scenario |
Mental rule in one sentence: "A 1pp move is a tweet. 3pp is an interview. 5pp+ is a done deal."
Navigating the platform
From here, we'll walk through the platform in the order you encounter when you open the site.
1. Header (top of the page)
At the top of the screen you see the AFOS Analytics logo and three navigation buttons:
| Button | What it does |
|---|---|
| About | Explains the project's mission, the problem it solves, and the method |
| Goals | Shows the platform's public goals (country coverage, source integration, roadmap) |
| Global | Returns to the world map, useful when you're in the middle of an analysis and want to explore another country |
The header is present on all pages. It's the navigation anchor.
Clicking About opens a window with 4 blocks: Who we are (platform description and sources), What it's for (questions it helps answer), How to use (suggested profiles: voter, investor, journalist) and What AFOS means (acronym A-F-O-S: Astuteness, Fairness, Objectivity, Synthesis, the 4 values guiding the project).
The open-source model is declared: anyone can study, audit and contribute. Licensing details (Apache 2.0 for code, CC BY 4.0 for editorial content) live in the footer on every page and on the Terms of Use page.
Clicking Goals opens the project's strategic document: the central thesis (political information as global infrastructure), intended impact across three dimensions (economic, institutional, educational) and the country coverage roadmap.
Here you'll find the project's "why": what structural problem it solves, what value it delivers to institutional investors, governments, journalists and citizens. It's the most institutionally dense page, recommended for those evaluating the platform as a partner or analytical reference.
Clicking Global opens an interactive world map of national elections planned for 2026 and following years. Each country with a registered election appears highlighted, with Polymarket market volume (when available) and favorite candidate by odds.
Currently, 14 countries are monitored, with focus on Latin America (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico) and key global countries (US, France, UK). For each, the card displays election date, main candidates, and link to a detailed profile.
It's the entry point for the platform's international expansion. If you're following a specific election, the global map is the fastest shortcut to switch context without going back to the home page.
2. AFOS Daily, Daily Synthesis
Right below the header you see the AFOS Daily card: a light-blue block with today's date, an excerpt of the day's narrative synthesis (up to 2 lines) and a "Read synthesis →" button.
It's the only piece of the dashboard that is not raw data, it's a curated narrative (~700 words, 4-minute read) cross-referencing the three signals (market, poll, news) with an inline link for every claim. Published once a day, at the end of the day.
Fixed structure: 2-3 line lede with 3 key movements + 4 numbered sections (Prediction market, What institutes registered, What the press covered, Divergences of the day) + final synthesis in 3 bullets.
Editorial rules: every claim with an inline link to the source (minimum 1 link per substantive paragraph); zero partisan adjectives; observational tone ("the market priced", "the poll registered"); always explicit dates (never "yesterday"); ↑↓pp variations cited.
Permanent permalink: each day has its own URL (/daily/2026-04-28). Allows citing and linking a specific synthesis on social media, articles or reports.
History: inside the synthesis page, "← Previous synthesis" and "Next synthesis →" buttons navigate the archive days.
3 languages: PT-BR · EN · ES. Switching language preserves the date being read. Brazilian political terms without direct translation (TSE, STF, BolsoMaster, aging political class, etc.) stay in Portuguese with an inline link to the glossary that explains them in 3 languages.
Visual theme: toggle in the top-right corner switches between light theme (default) and Sapphire Blue (dark blue background with light text, ideal for evening reading).
Validation: the feature went through a 7-day public pilot (April 22-28, 2026) with a GO/NO-GO decision on the last day. Approved as a permanent feature.
When it's worth reading: when you want to understand why the dashboard numbers moved, not just how much. The dashboard shows the day's snapshot; AFOS Daily tells the story, with auditable sources for you to verify each step.
3. The 6 Polymarket Cards, Instant dashboard
Right after the header, six cards appear side by side summarizing Polymarket's most important markets at the moment. Each card shows a percentage (probability priced by the market) with the variation relative to the previous day (↑↓pp).
Shows the probabilities of major candidates winning in the first round (>50% of valid votes, avoiding a runoff).
Today's example (Apr 19): Candidate B 39.6% × Candidate A 39.5% → technical tie. Neither has a real chance of winning in the 1st round.
How to read: if a candidate passes 50%, the market believes in direct victory; below that, there will be a runoff.
Shows the probability of each candidate being the runner-up (reaching the runoff in second position).
Today's example: Candidate B 66.5% (↑0.5pp) × Candidate A 17% (↑1pp) × Candidate C 6.7%.
How to read: this market consolidates the runoff scenario. If Candidate B leads with 66.5%, it means the money sees it as nearly certain that they're in the runoff, regardless of who they face.
Shows favorites to finish in 3rd position, meaning outside the runoff, but with decisive influence (they transfer votes).
Today's example: Candidate C 32% × Candidate D 19% × Candidate F 3.95%.
How to read: this is the third-way thermometer. When a name surges here (like Candidate D from 8.5% → 19.5% on Apr 18), the market is pricing in a relevant political move.
Shows the probability of any Supreme Court justice being impeached before 2027.
Today's example: 11.5% (↓1.5pp, falling -4.5pp in 2 days).
How to read: this number is the institutional risk priced by the market. When it rises, there's real tension between Congress and the Court. When it falls, the market believes the system "will accommodate".
Shows the probability of each party winning the majority of seats in the 2026 Senate election.
Today's example: PL 76.5% (↓3pp) × MDB 10.5% × PSD 5.1% × União 3.1% × PT 2.4%.
How to read: the Senate conditions the next government. A president without a Senate base governs poorly. When PL falls (↓3pp), the market prices a different scenario from 2022, when the government had an adverse Senate.
Shows the probability of which range Brazil's 2026 annual inflation will close in.
Today's example: 5.00-5.49% has 39.45% probability (↑2.75pp) × 4.50-4.99%: 33.75% × 4.00-4.49%: 9.45%.
How to read: this is the economic thermometer. High inflation pressures government, favors opposition. When the 5.00-5.49% band surges (↑2.75pp in 1 day), the market is saying "forget low inflation", with direct electoral consequence.
4. Electoral Polls
Below the Polymarket cards, you find the electoral polls section.
How polls arrive here
All polls registered with Brazil's TSE (Superior Electoral Court) are downloaded automatically every day. The database holds more than 150 indexed polls and grows by about 2 to 4 new polls registered per week, a pace that accelerates as the electoral cycle advances.
Monitored institutes
The platform tracks 17+ Brazilian institutes. The most frequent in the last month:
| Institute | Recent polls | Average sample |
|---|---|---|
| Paraná Pesquisas | 3 | 1,593 respondents |
| Datafolha | 2 | 1,513 |
| 100 Cidades | 2 | 1,400 |
| Instituto Piauiense | 2 | 800 |
| Veritá | 1 | 1,220 |
Knowing not only what polls say, but what they're about to say
Under Brazilian legislation, every institute is required to register each poll with the TSE before publishing it, with a unique protocol, field dates (when it's being administered), expected publication date, sample size, and cost. This registration is public and becomes available in the TSE's official database the moment the institute submits it.
This is where AFOS intelligence kicks in: the platform runs automatic ingestion cycles throughout the day querying the TSE directly. When a new poll is registered in the official database, within hours it's already processed, cross-referenced with Polymarket, and displayed on your screen, without depending on a journalist covering it or an official note from the institute.
What you see for each poll
- Institute (e.g., Paraná Pesquisas, Datafolha, Quaest)
- TSE protocol (unique, auditable identifier)
- Field: dates when interviewers are collecting responses
- Expected publication: when the institute will release results
- Sample: number of respondents
- Status: "published" (already out) or "active field" (still being administered)
Real example today (Apr 19)
Paraná Pesquisas, national, field Apr 21-23 (in progress), expected publication Apr 24, sample 1,680
You know 5 days in advance that on Thursday there will be a national Paraná Pesquisas poll with nearly 1,700 respondents.
Press and traditional analysts only discover a poll when the institute publicly releases it, which can be 5 to 10 days after registration. AFOS discovers it on the same day the registration enters the TSE, because its ingestion cycles operate automatically at intervals of a few hours. This changes the logic: you stop reacting to news and start anticipating it.
Institute evaluation criteria
Beyond listing polls, AFOS displays a dashboard card called "Monitored Institutes, Reliability", where each institute receives a 1-to-5-star rating. This rating serves as an editorial weighting ruler to help readers decide how much to trust each source when polls diverge.
Nature of the rating: it is a qualitative editorial evaluation, not an automatically calculated score. It reflects public consensus in the Brazilian electoral market (analysts, specialized journalists, methodological literature). It works as an honest first approximation; evolution toward a quantitative score is on the AFOS roadmap post-election cycle.
The 5 criteria considered
| Criterion | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Accuracy track record | How well the institute predicted past elections (within declared margins). E.g., MDA has a strong track record of hits in previous cycles. |
| Collection methodology | In-person (most representative), Online (digital bias), Phone (demographic bias), Mixed. Methodology appears in parentheses on the card: "(Presencial)", "(Online)", etc. |
| Tradition and time in market | How many election cycles the institute has covered. Long tradition reduces the risk of systemic methodological error. |
| Who commissions | Indirect proxy of quality demand. Polls commissioned by banks, investors, or major outlets tend to have higher rigor (typical cost R$100k-300k). |
| Frequency and scope | How many polls are published, how often, and whether it covers national, state, or only local scenarios. |
Star scale and interpretation
| Level | Meaning | How to read polls from this institute |
|---|---|---|
| ★★★★★ | National reference | Cite without reservation. Data is usually robust and auditable. |
| ★★★★ | High reliability | Solid data. Good for forming opinions, ideally with cross-comparison. |
| ★★★ | Reliable | Use, but always compare with at least 1-2 other polls from the same period. |
| ★★ | Use with caution | Always cite with reservation. Inconsistent methodological track record or very recent institute. |
| ★ | Low reliability | Avoid basing decisions on this source alone. No Brazilian institute is currently at this level. |
Sources consulted for the classification
- Official TSE electoral results, public comparison between predictions and ballot box results in previous cycles (2018, 2022)
- Brazilian methodological literature, ABEP (Brazilian Association of Research Companies), academic articles on electoral poll accuracy, methodological analyses at FGV and Poder360
- Specialized journalistic consensus, reference political analysts (Folha, Estadão, O Globo, Poder360) who historically weight institutes in similar fashion
- Public TSE history, registration protocols, sample size, declared cost, publication frequency (all public and auditable)
- The institutes' own websites, declared methodology, disclosure of questionnaires, transparency about weighting and stratification
The current rating is editorial and subjective. Two people evaluating the same criteria could arrive at slightly different scores. To reduce this subjectivity in the long term, the AFOS roadmap calls for evolution toward a quantitative score based on TSE historical data + official results, accuracy rate, mean absolute error, weighted sample, frequency, and methodological transparency, with reproducible, published calculation. Timeline depends on data from the October 2026 election cycle.
5. In-Depth Analysis (of the top 4 candidates)
This is the richest section and the one that requires slower reading.
The analysis is divided into 4 sections: Candidate A, Candidate B, Candidate C, and a section grouping candidates D, E, and F. Each section has three blocks: STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, and ANALYSIS.
🟢 "STRENGTHS" block
Everything that is working in the candidate's favor that day, with source, date, and outlet cited. It's not opinion, it's auditable data.
Today's Candidate A example: "POLYMARKET (Apr 19): 39.5% (stable) while Candidate B deflates. 2nd-place Poly Candidate A RISES 17% (↑1pp). Folha: 'Candidate A intensifies agenda aimed at women'. Poder360: 'Women become central focus'."
🔴 "WEAKNESSES" block
Everything working against the candidate, with the same depth as strengths blocks. AFOS is symmetric.
Today's Candidate A example: "Candidate B keeps minimal lead. Paraná Pesquisas São Paulo: runoff Candidate B 48.1% × Candidate A 40.3%. BNews: Candidate A drop / Candidate B growth in the Northeast. Gazeta do Povo: 'How Candidate A melted their 2022 advantage'."
🔵 "ANALYSIS" block
The stitch. How strengths and weaknesses connect, and what it means strategically at that moment.
6. Comparative Table
A single table summarizing candidate by candidate:
| Candidate | Current poll | Polymarket | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate A (PT) | 37% 1st round (Quaest) / 39.2% (CNT/MDA) | 39.5% (stable) | Technical tie with Candidate B |
| Candidate B (PL) | 32% 1st round (Quaest) / 35.9% (Veritá) | 39.6% (↓0.8pp) | Surge deflates, holds minimal lead |
| Candidate C (Missão) | 4.4% (AtlasIntel) | 6.25% (stable) | 3rd place recovers (Candidate D regresses) |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
In a single glance, you see the complete state of the game.
7. Candidate Profiles
This section presents each candidate in individual cards with five fields:
- Name, party, age, current role
- Polymarket: current percentage in the presidential market
- Poll: most recent voting intention number
- Position: ideology summarized (center-left, liberal right, etc.)
- ⚠️ Risk: the day's summary, what might change, what's under pressure, what favors
It's a quick "who's who". If someone asks "who is Candidate C?", you open, read for 20 seconds, and answer with data.
8. Countries, Clickable Buttons
The platform covers 14+ countries with monitored elections. Each country appears as a clickable button. Clicking one, you see the same type of cross-reference (Polymarket + local polls + news) applied to that election.
Countries currently featured: Brazil, USA, France, Germany, UK, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Colombia, Chile, among others.
Why this matters: global political decisions influence each other. The 2024 US result affects the dynamics of Brazil 2026. Seeing the full map gives you context.
9. Live Elections News 120'
A live feed showing news published in the last 120 minutes related to monitored elections. Sources include Google News, major Brazilian portals, and international agencies.
How it works: every 30 minutes, a bot fetches news in 6 different categories (presidential election, specific candidates, scandals, polls, government approval, state races) and in the platform's 3 languages (PT-BR, EN, ES). The feed displays the most relevant in chronological order.
Instead of opening 10 newspaper tabs, you have the essential on a single screen, filtered by electoral relevance.
10. Political Climate
A dedicated panel showing the general climate of the race through four simultaneous lenses:
- Right: what's working for/against right-wing candidates
- Left: same for left-wing candidates
- Third way: how candidates outside the Candidate A / Candidate B axis are moving
- Consolidated Polymarket: the single number of the day summarizing the scenario
In 30 seconds you have the political temperature of the moment, without needing to read any long analysis.
11. INSS Scandal and the Incumbent's Family Case
Specific card about the biggest economic scandal of 2026, the fraud of undue INSS (Brazilian pension) deductions, and the ramifications involving a family member of the incumbent.
What it shows: text structured in 4 blocks:
- Current context of the case (day's updates)
- Institutional dynamics (Congress, PF, PGR, Supreme Court)
- Supreme Court impact (impeachment probability on Polymarket)
- Political field (how the scandal affects Candidate A vs Candidate B)
A topic involving dozens of actors (ministers, senators, police chiefs, judges) becomes consolidated in 2 minutes of reading, with the connections already made.
12. Banco Master Scandal Impact
Card focused on the Banco Master case and the plea bargain of the executive involved, another economic scandal unfolding in chapters.
What it shows:
- Latest developments (e.g., Central Bank approved the executive's control after initially rejecting)
- Institutional tensions (Federal Police × Attorney General's Office, Congressional Inquiry × Supreme Court)
- Cross-reference with Polymarket (does the market believe in a justice impeachment?)
- Electoral consequences
As a long and fragmented story in the press, having a consolidated diary saves hours of searching.
13. Supreme Court Credibility, Electoral Impact
Card dedicated to reading the Supreme Court as an electoral actor, because the Court, though it doesn't vote, decisively influences elections.
What it shows:
- Justice by justice (Justice 1, Justice 2, Justice 3, Justice 4): what each is doing
- Nexus: how individual actions connect into institutional strategy
- Analysis: interprets Polymarket, does the market expect rupture (impeachment) or accommodation?
Today's example: "Supreme Court impeach falls 11.5% (↓1.5pp, -4.5pp in 2 days). Court wants to tighten inquiry rules. Justice 1 may recuse themselves in the BRB case."
Translation: the Court is protecting itself. The market senses there will be no impeachment, which reduces risk for candidates who would bet on institutional rupture.
Understanding the Supreme Court as a political actor, not just a judicial one.
14. Footer (page bottom)
The footer is organized into three lean blocks, each with a clear purpose. No link in the footer points to an empty page, each one delivers something specific.
Block 1, Navigation
Shortcuts to the main platform areas:
- Dashboard, main application with the 6 Polymarket cards, analyses, and thematic cards
- Global Map, interactive D3.js visualization of the 14+ monitored countries
- Latin America, regional hub with Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and Mexico
- Europe, regional hub with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom
Block 2, Open Source
Full transparency about the project, following the reference standard in open-source software:
- Apache 2.0 License, use, modification, and redistribution permitted with attribution
- ⭐ GitHub, public repository with auditable source code
- Security, responsible disclosure policy for vulnerabilities
- Contributing, guide for external developers to submit improvements
- Code of Conduct, community coexistence rules (Contributor Covenant)
Block 3, Get in Touch
Four email channels segmented by purpose:
- 📧 Contact, press, partnerships, and general matters
- 💬 Support, help using the platform
- 🔒 Security, confidential vulnerability reports
- 👤 Founder, direct contact with the founder
Bottom row
Bottom line with platform identification, data sources with real frequencies ("Polymarket 5min, 17+ TSE Institutes, Google News 30min"), Polymarket non-affiliation disclaimer, and "back to top" button.
Many sites fill the footer with dozens of decorative links that don't work or lead to empty pages. AFOS chose the opposite: few links, all functional. If a link appears in the footer, it delivers something real when clicked. This is the same philosophy as mature open-source projects like Supabase, Linear, and Prisma.
Behind the platform
Data arrives on its own
Everything you read comes from automated pipelines that run 24 hours a day:
- Every 30 minutes: Polymarket is queried and percentages updated
- Every 30 minutes: news is collected in 6 thematic categories and 3 languages
- Daily: new polls registered with the TSE are downloaded and indexed
- Twice daily (12pm and 6pm BRT): complete cross-referencing of the 3 sources is executed, comparing current state with the previous day (↑↓pp variations), and persisted in the database to form an auditable history
Analyses generated by AI from public data
The in-depth analyses (the Strengths, Weaknesses, Analysis blocks, the Cross-reference, and the four thematic cards) are generated by artificial intelligence that:
- Reads the current values from the 3 sources
- Compares with values from the previous day
- Consults the most relevant news from the last 24 hours
- Applies the convergence/divergence rules described earlier
- Writes the resulting narrative, citing sources, dates, and outlets
All data used is public and auditable, anyone can verify Polymarket, TSE polls, or cited news.
Transparency about AI use is a modern standard, and it's what differentiates a serious project from an opaque one.
User profiles
Visits: 2x per week, 5 minutes per visit.
What they do: read the 6 Polymarket cards + the Political Climate card.
Value: stays informed without consuming biased newspapers. Forms opinion based on data.
Visits: daily, 15 minutes.
What they do: read the whole in-depth analysis + comparative table + 120' news feed. Notes variations.
Value: understands before competitors that the game has changed. Cites auditable sources.
Visits: daily, 20 minutes.
What they do: reads consolidated Polymarket + Supreme Court card + Inflation card + Banco Master card. Cross-references with portfolio positions.
Value: political risk is asset price. Knowing before the market prices in an ineligibility or scandal = concrete advantage in trading/hedging.
When AFOS isn't useful (honest limitations)
No platform is useful for every question. Being honest about what AFOS doesn't deliver is what separates a serious tool from a vague promise.
AFOS doesn't replace formal statistical research
If you need margin of error, confidence interval, or controlled scientific sampling (in plain language: numbers with certified mathematical precision and auditable sampling methodology), the source is the polling institute (Datafolha, Quaest, IBGE, etc.). AFOS consolidates and cross-references this data, but doesn't produce new polls.
AFOS doesn't predict results with quantitative precision
The cross-reference is structured narrative, not statistical model. The platform doesn't deliver predictions with calculated mathematical precision. It delivers direction, pace, and convergence, qualitative readings useful for supporting decisions, but that don't replace the formal mathematical modeling that academics and quantitative funds use.
AFOS depends on the quality of prediction markets
In countries where Polymarket doesn't have active markets or has markets with very low liquidity (below US$ 100 thousand in volume), the market signal becomes noisy. AFOS flags these cases, but data confidence drops proportionally.
AFOS is not investment or voting recommendation
It's structured information to support decisions. Decisions about portfolio, bets, or votes are the sole responsibility of the user. The platform doesn't work with clients, doesn't receive commission, and has no declared conflict of interest, precisely so it doesn't have to recommend anything.
Current coverage is restricted to 14+ countries
Countries outside this list don't have a specific collection pipeline. The global map shows aggregates, but the depth of analysis (polls × Polymarket × news cross-reference) only exists where the infrastructure is ready. Expansion is continuous, but not universal.
What makes AFOS different from Google News or a newspaper
| Traditional newspaper | Google News | AFOS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editorial bias | High | Medium | Transparent (shows both sides) |
| Integrates real money? | No | No | Yes, prediction market |
| Cross-references multiple sources? | No | Aggregates but doesn't cross | Yes, with logic and method |
| Shows change over time? | No | No | Yes (↑↓pp daily variations) |
| Open source? | No | No | Yes, Apache 2.0 |
| Cost? | Subscription | Free but limited | 100% free, no login |
Start here
If this is your first visit, this is the fastest way to extract value in 5 minutes:
The 6 Polymarket Cards at the top already give you the day's panorama. Read in order: 1st round → 2nd place → Supreme Court → Senate. Focus on the ↑↓pp variations, they tell you what moved since yesterday.
Pick a candidate you're interested in and read the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES blocks side by side. You'll feel honest discomfort reading the points against your favorite, that's a sign the method works. AFOS shows both sides of each number.
The visual summary of the day's political climate in 30 seconds. Right, left, third way, and consolidated Polymarket, all on one screen.
Come back tomorrow. AFOS's real value appears in sequence: one day gives context, three days give pattern, one week gives trend. Reading once is informing yourself; reading daily is anticipating.
AFOS Analytics is the first platform that combines real-money prediction markets, official polls, and real-time news to show, with honesty and transparency, what the data actually says about politics, without bias, without propaganda, free and without mandatory registration.
Updated April 2026