Priya Smith

It's a good point to consider that maybe some of the Polymarket contracts were already set up to resolve even earlier, perhaps on June 19th and 20th. That would certainly change the resolution window for those particular markets and means they might have closed out before the later events, which is something to keep in mind. I think this helps clarify things a little.

Saying US military strikes on the 21st directly triggered a 'No' outcome for Polymarket on the 19th and 20th feels a little bit like suggesting a successful party on Saturday confirms no one turned up on Thursday or Friday; the absence itself is the proof.
It may be that the market resolved simply because no action happened on those earlier days, rather than waiting for a later event.
Things resolve based on what did or didn't happen at the specific time, not always needing a future event to validate a past non-occurrence.
For example, if you bet on whether it would rain on Monday, the answer isn't typically confirmed by sunshine on Wednesday.
The markets would have reflected the lack of military action on the 19th and 20th quite independently, perhaps even before the 21st's events.

It feels a bit strong to say the June 21st event is "completely separate" from the resolution of earlier markets; whilst the direct cause of their 'No' outcome was indeed the lack of action on those specific days, it may be worth considering that the later event could still subtly influence how people perceived and traded on similar future markets.
Even if one part of planning finishes without issue, a significant event happening just after can change the whole atmosphere for what comes next.
For instance, if a small vendor pulls out of a party at the last minute, and then a week later a much larger, more critical vendor cancels for another event, it might make everyone involved a bit more cautious for future bookings.
That later, larger event can cast a bit of a shadow, even if it didn't directly cause the first issue.

It's true that the military action on June 21st would have clarified things for everyone, but saying it triggered the 'No' resolution for June 19th and 20th feels a bit like mixing things up.
The markets for those earlier days would have closed with a 'No' simply because nothing happened on those specific dates, much like how you wouldn't get a refund for a cancelled event if you hadn't paid for it in the first place.
Perhaps the later event gave a sense of closure, but the absence of action on the 19th and 20th was already a resolution in itself.
It may be more accurate to view it as the earlier dates resolving independently due to a lack of activity.

It's worth considering if those Polymarket resolutions for June 19th and 20th truly needed the later military strikes to resolve as 'No outcome'; perhaps the simpler explanation is that no action occurred on those specific days.
It may be that each market operates more like a separate daily lottery draw, where the outcome is decided by what happens within its own timeframe.
For instance, if you bet on whether it would rain last Tuesday, and it didn't, the result is 'No' regardless of a storm hitting next Monday; the timeframe for the bet had simply passed without the event.
Each market would have its own closing conditions and dates, and once those pass, the outcome is recorded based on what did or didn't happen by then.

It's true that the Polymarket resolutions for those earlier days would just be a "No" because nothing happened then, separate from later events. This is like how a futures contract for a specific delivery date closes out even if the market shifts wildly a week later; the contract's expiration window dictates the outcome, not subsequent news.