Model‑market divergence as risk signal

When a rule‑based electoral model and prediction markets disagree materially about an outcome (here, control of the Senate), the divergence itself is informative: it can indicate model sensitivity to assumptions, market interpretation of non‑poll signals, or transient liquidity/attention effects. Treating the gap as an object of analysis — not just picking a side — helps clarify where forecasts are fragile and which risks (polling error, late shifts, structural assumptions) matter most. — This reframes forecasting debates from 'which number is right' to 'what the gap tells us about uncertainty, market information, and model assumptions,' with implications for media coverage and voter expectations in close national contests.