Litten crouches on a sunlit terracotta rooftop in this Simplified Chinese card, yellow eyes sharp and its black tail whipping up behind it, while a Mediterranean-style town fills the blue sky beyond. The whole card is covered in a scatter of small stars, a nice treatment for a one-diamond Gem Pack Vol.4 pick that came out in mainland China in February 2026. Alola's fire kitten is a gentle starter-sized draw, and the low gem tier keeps it an easy pickup. The modelled guide sits at $1.99, down 15% over 30 days on 2 copies traded; no PSA population is on file.

as of Nov 13, 2026 · UTC

history since Aug 2026

Litten (火斑喵) — 2003 · 1DMkt$1.990.0%guide price · monthlyitem price

Vol — sold·0 prints·1 obssingle obs — no range

Live Listings

Pricevs MktQtyCond

eBay0

Fair value

Insufficient data

No fair value is published for this card — needs 3 confirmed observations (2 in 30d).

Market safety

Not rated

$12.62 buys the entire visible book (30d traded unknown, 6 asks).

Nothing has traded in 30 days, so there is no turnover to measure a spike against. The book below is what is listed right now.

Book

10%$1.50$1.50 ask50%$7.46$2.24 ask80%$12.62$2.58 askBook $12.62

Mechanics

Whole book$12.62

nothing traded — priced at the whole board

Book breadth1 level

6 units on the board

The absorption ladder walks the visible delivered-price ask book cheapest-first: what each slice of the book costs, the ask it leaves marginal, and how far that sits from the last price the card actually traded at. Manipulation risk is the worse of two reads — how many days of this card’s own turnover it would take to absorb the cost of control, and whether the whole buyable book fits inside a single ordinary order.

Flow

Thin tape

Insufficient data

Only 3 units sold in 30 days — under the 8-unit floor for reading a pace.

Method

Daily units are the venue's own sold-quantity history, expanded off each bucket's real span, plus confirmed prints from the other side of the market. Prints come from the live sales tape at delivered prices. The floor is the cheapest delivered ask (item + required shipping) across venues — the same one FAIR VALUE prices against.

Bottom line

No call

30/100 across 1 of 11 inputs. Against: liquidity reads 30/100. That is under half the model, so no call is made on it.

Liquidity30

1 of 11 inputs · 9% weight · -35% confidence

Not reading yet: value vs fair, price trend, money flow, book pressure, relative strength, grading upside, manipulation risk, seller concentration, reprint risk, scarcity.

Supply

Heavy supply

6 units listed across 5 sellers — 60.0d of stock at the 30-day pace of 0.1/day.

Listed · 5 sellers · $12.626 unitsSold · 30d · 0.1/day3 units

Why It's Moving

What changedWhat changedThe observable that moved, stated before any reason for it — the fact the rest of this panel has to account for.: Modelled guide price moved -15.0% over 30 days, now at $1.99.
Primary explanationPrimary explanationThe reading the evidence best supports. It is an explanation, never a forecast, and it is only as good as the Evidence row two lines down.: Primary read: Liquidity scored 30/100 (composite weight 61%). — the largest single contributor to the current ILLIQUID_UNKNOWN regime read.
AlternativeAlternativeA competing explanation the SAME evidence would also support. It is printed even when the primary looks strong: an explanation with no stated alternative is a story, not an analysis.: Alternative explanation: Data quality scored 33/100 (composite weight 39%).. With 5 distinct sellers/observations in the trailing window, either read is defensible — this is not a high-conviction single-cause move.
EvidenceEvidenceThe specific observations the explanation rests on. If this row is thin, treat the explanation as thin — it is the only thing holding it up.: Evidence: item-basis daily bars, absorption read ("Insufficient data: 0 inventory observation(s) in the trailing 30d window (need >= 4).").
ConfidenceConfidenceHow much weight to put on the primary explanation, given how much of the evidence actually resolved. It qualifies the row above; it never adds to it.: Confidence: 90% (floor-confidence 21/100), based on 258 days of observations.
What would disprove itWhat would disprove itThe observation that would break the primary explanation. It is what makes the reading falsifiable rather than unfalsifiable — and it is the thing to watch for next.: This read would be wrong if the price reverses over the next 7 days.

Provenance

EvidenceEvidenceWhat kind of fact this row is. A completed sale, a live ask and a calculated guide price are three different weights of evidence about the same number, and this column is the difference between them.	ObservedObservedThe day the fact was read — not the day the underlying event happened, and not today. An old date is an old reading.	AgeAgeHow long ago this row was read, as of the moment the page was computed.	ConfidenceConfidenceHow much weight this row carries where it feeds a model, from the resolver that matched it. Lower means a looser match or a thinner source, and a low-confidence row is reweighted rather than dropped.	ModelledModelledYes = a CALCULATED value (a guide price, an estimate); No = something actually observed (a sale, a listing, a census count). A modelled row is evidence about a model, not about the market.
CatalogCard identity: set, number, rarity, finish, release date. It dates from the printing itself, so an old reading here is expected and is not staleness.	Feb 6, 2026	280d	98%	No
Live askA copy offered for sale right now. An ask is what a seller wants, not what anyone paid — it bounds the price from above until it clears.	Oct 27, 2026	17d	90%	No

Raw · Chinese (Simplified) · Normal · Near Mintpq-quant-2026.10.0

Liquidity9%30Value vs fair17%no readingPrice trend13%no readingMoney flow11%no readingBook pressure11%no readingManipulation risk9%no readingRelative strength7%no readingScarcity7%no readingGrading upside6%no readingSeller concentration5%no readingReprint risk5%no reading

The bottom line is a weighted mean of the signals that reported, renormalised so their weights sum to 1. Nothing defaults to a neutral 50: an input with no evidence is reweighted away and its absence is charged as a confidence penalty. Risk rows (manipulation, concentration, reprint) enter inverted. Data quality carries no weight at all — it decides whether the verdict may be spoken, because knowing a lot about a card is not a reason to buy it. Competitive meta sits OUTSIDE the weighted mean as a capped bonus added after it: a card nobody plays is never marked down for that, and a card the meta is built on can be marked up for it.