AI Strategy: How to Choose What AI Product to Implement

Evaluating the true forecasting ability of AI agents requires environments that are resistant to environments resistant to overfitting, free from centralized trust, and grounded in incentive-compatible scoring. Existing benchmarks either rely on static datasets vulnerable to training-data contamination, or measure trading PnL -- a metric conflating predictive accuracy with timing, sizing, and risk appetite. We introduce Foresight Arena, the first permissionless, on-chain benchmark for evaluating AI forecasting agents on real-world prediction markets. Agents submit probabilistic forecasts on binary Polymarket markets via a commit-reveal protocol enforced by Solidity smart contracts on Polygon PoS; outcomes are resolved trustlessly through the Gnosis Conditional Token Framework. Performance is measured by the Brier Score and a novel Alpha Score -- proper scoring rules that incentivize honest probability reporting and isolate predictive edge over market consensus. We provide a formal analysis: closed-form variance for per-market Alpha, the connection to Murphy's classical Brier decomposition, and a power analysis characterizing the number of rounds required to reliably distinguish agents of different skill levels. We show that detecting a true edge of $α^* = 0.02$ at 80% power requires approximately 350 resolved binary predictions (50 rounds of 7 markets), while $α^* = 0.01$ requires four times more. We complement these analytical results with a deterministic, seed-controlled simulation study calibrated to literature-reported Brier-score ranges, illustrating how Murphy decomposition distinguishes well-calibrated agents from market-tracking agents that fail through reduced resolution. Live results from the deployed benchmark will be reported in a future revision. All smart contracts and evaluation infrastructure are open-source.

Evaluating financial AI agents requires criteria aligned with real professional work. Existing rubric methods typically derive criteria from task prompts or model outputs, overlooking tacit standards visible only in practitioner deliverables. We introduce FinProBench, a benchmark for professional financial tasks, and Role-Grounded Rubric Construction (RGRC), a reusable pipeline that derives rubrics from deliverables produced by practitioners in the same role. RGRC comprises four stages: Deliverable Collection, Competency Extraction, Rubric Synthesis, and Validation. Its rubrics capture tacit standards, distinguish quality levels, and transfer across tasks within a role. Before analysis, we classified 57 occupations by deliverable genre into 30 prior-rich conventional roles and 27 prior-sparse role-specialized roles. Across all roles, Prompt-only nearly matches RGRC for conventional roles (89.2% vs. 90.7%), but RGRC substantially outperforms it for role-specialized roles (99.1% vs. 78.0%). This split indicates that prompt engineering can approximate rubrics when conventions are well represented in model priors, while professional grounding is essential for standards beyond those priors. FinProBench is built from 1,723 curated deliverables spanning 57 occupations, 8 financial sub-industries, and 161 deliverable types, and releases an initial evaluation set of 20 complete tasks covering 20 roles in 7 sub-industries. With heterogeneous LLM judges and role-level rubrics, human deliverables rank first on average (73.7 vs. 70.3, 70.2, and 69.6 out of 100), while all four systems show overlapping 95% confidence intervals and complementary strengths. Reusing rubrics at the role level reduces estimated per-task construction effort by 6.7 times relative to authoring each rubric from scratch.

LLM-based financial agents increasingly produce investment rationales before the outcomes needed to evaluate them are observable. This creates a delayed-ground-truth evaluation problem: realized returns remain the eventual arbiter of investment quality, but they arrive too late and are too noisy to guide many model-development and governance decisions. LLM judges offer a tempting shortcut for pre-deployment evaluation of AI-finance systems, but unvalidated judges may reward verbosity, confidence, or rubric mimicry rather than financial judgment. This paper introduces ValueBlindBench, a preregistered agreement-gated stress-test protocol for deciding when LLM-judged investment-rationale claims are publishable, qualified, or invalid. In a controlled market-state capital-allocation prototype with 1,000 honest decision cycles and 100 preregistered adversarial controls (1,100 trajectories, 5,500 judge calls), ValueBlindBench clears the aggregate agreement gate at $\barκ_w = 0.7168$ but prevents several overclaims. Lower-rank systems collapse into a tie-class, one rubric dimension fails the per-dimension gate (\texttt{constraint_awareness}, $\barκ_w = 0.2022$), single-judge rankings are family-dependent, and terse-correct rationales receive a $Δ= -2.81$ rubric-point penalty relative to honest rationales. A targeted anchor-specificity probe further shows that financial constructs such as constraint awareness are operationally load-bearing. The scientific object is therefore not a leaderboard and not a claim to measure true investment skill. ValueBlindBench is a pre-calibration metrology layer for AI-finance evaluation: it governs whether a proposed LLM-judge-based investment-rationale claim is stable enough, agreed enough, and uncontaminated enough to be reported at all.