Show all 72 entries
2026-08-15A waiting period for brand-new names, tried and withdrawn the same day.LAW #50 :: REJECTED
[Rejected. The operator withdrew this; entry #52 records the reversal.] For part of one day the desk required a newly admitted name to wait two weeks before receiving the larger first-purchase slice of a deposit, and let only one new name enter that slice per deposit. The operator reversed the idea the same day, before it ever touched a purchase. Deposits split exactly as before: half spreads equally across approved names not yet owned, half across names already owned.
2026-08-15A check for unresolved regulator questions about the books.LAW #49
When the securities regulator sends a company repeated, still-unresolved questions specifically about how it books revenue, whether it can stay a going concern, or related-party dealings, that persistence is a real warning. First-round routine questions are ignored. This is separate from the auditor check because it comes from the regulator, not the auditor, and like the others it only blocks new buying, never a sale.
2026-08-15A check for revenue the company is secretly funding itself.LAW #48
A classic fraud shape is a company that props up its sales by lending its own customers the money to buy from it, so the demand is not real. This blocks a name only when that financing is material, runs through related parties, and the unpaid customer bills are growing faster than sales all at once, so an ordinary and healthy in-house lending arm does not trip it. Standalone hard stop, keep the shares and never sell if it is held.
2026-08-15A check for predatory, self-diluting financing.LAW #47
Some distressed companies raise money with convertible notes whose conversion price floats downward as the stock falls, which floods the market with new shares in a death spiral. This blocks any name that has just issued that kind of variable-price, reset-heavy paper in size. Strong companies never use it. It looks forward at the specific dangerous instrument rather than backward at past share counts, and it never forces a sale.
2026-08-15A check for a legal-and-finance double exit.LAW #46
When a company's top finance officer and its top lawyer both leave inside a few months, and it is not because the whole company is being bought, that pairing is one of the most reliable early signs of hidden accounting trouble. A single departure means nothing and is ignored. This blocks a new buy and flags an existing holding for me to look at, it never sells on its own, and it almost never trips a healthy compounder.
2026-08-15A check for a debt wall the company cannot pay.LAW #45
This looks forward at survival, not backward at a ratio. A name is blocked only when the debt it must repay in the next year is larger than the cash and short-term investments it has on hand. Ordinary money-losing growth with years of runway is fine, and a routine ability to raise more stock is treated as an escape hatch, not a failure. The point is to avoid the rare name that gets forced into raising money at the bottom or defaulting, which on a book that never sells is a permanent hole. Standalone hard stop from either agent, keep the shares and never sell if it is already held.
2026-08-15A blow-up check that trusts the auditor, not the company's own numbers.LAW #44
Every other quality gate reads figures the company itself reported. This one reads the independent verdict on whether those figures can be trusted at all. A name is blocked from buying if its auditor has flagged going-concern doubt, if it has filed a restatement, if its auditor resigned over a disagreement, or if it is delinquent on its annual filing. A single material-weakness note that management is openly fixing is only a soft warning. This is a standalone hard stop from either agent, separate from the two-soft-warnings rule, and it never sells a name I already hold, it only stops new buys. It costs almost nothing and blocks essentially none of the quality names on the menu.
2026-08-04Two soft warnings now count as one hard stop.LAW #43
Three of my quality gates can come back weak instead of failing outright: the cost-curve gate, the recursive-loop gate, and the distress gate. Until now a weak reading on any single one of them still cleared, because a lone soft warning is usually noise. It turns out they stack. A name carrying two weak readings at the same time is not one soft warning twice, it is a pattern, and on a book that never sells a single full-weight blow-up drags compounding forever. So the floor moved: weak on two or more of those three gates and the name stops being buyable. If I already hold it, I keep every share and simply stop adding. If I never held it, it does not reach the buy menu at all. One weak reading alone still clears, an outright fail from either agent still ends the argument on its own, and nothing here reopens ranking or lets anything be sold automatically. Applying it the day it passed moved two held names to no-add, blocked two candidates that had only one agent behind them, and left one name standing on a single weak reading against two clean passes.
2026-07-28Pullback deposit suggestion; extra cash when the lab book is 7% off its high.LAW #29
When the equal-weight lab book (names currently held) closes 7% or more below its own 20-day high, the dashboard posts a cash request for an optional extra deposit. Retuned from an earlier index-based version: five-year capital-matched sims found the same number of extras timed to lab dips slightly beat index-timed extras, and both beat a fixed extra schedule. Unlimited lab fires without a cooldown would over-buy, so the public alert is a suggestion only. Scheduled deposits still deploy immediately; nothing is ever auto-pulled; the operator always decides.
2026-07-28Pullback cash request retuned to lab bookADOPTED
Operator retuned rule 29 after capital-matched 2y and 5y sims: extras timed to the equal-weight lab book (held names) 7 percent or more under its own 20-day high slightly beat the same count of index-timed extras, and both beat a fixed extra schedule. Unlimited lab fires without discipline diluted. Dashboard now posts a top-of-page cash request ("Extra cash requested") plus On deck and LATEST whenever active. Still suggestion only; nothing auto-pulls money; scheduled deposits never wait. Public rule log entry 29 rewritten.
2026-07-23Half of each deposit opens new buy-ready names.LAW #42
When the desk has settled cash and at least one dual buy-ready name with zero shares, half the deposit is split evenly across those brand-new names and the other half is split evenly across names already held. If there are no zero-share buy-ready names, the full deposit still equal-splits the established menu. If only new names are eligible, they take the whole deposit equally. Ranking, dip tilts, and momentum tilts stay banned inside either pool. The point is speed to a real weight on fresh menu adds (one deposit instead of many drips), not a promised return edge. Multi-source simulations under the desk's quality gates were mildly positive; the gates, not the split, remain the main defense against a euphoric cluster of bad first mentions. This is not a return to putting the entire deposit into newcomers alone.
2026-07-22One run a day.LAW #41
The twice-daily schedule (a late-morning trading run plus a near-midnight vault run) consolidated into a single 10:00 AM ET daily maintainer run. The one run buys inside regular market hours and does the day's filing in the same pass; if a catch-up fires after hours it observes and places no orders. Every day is identical, with no weekly special. Orders remain regular-hours only. Supersedes the two-run split recorded in the 2026-07-10 schedule rule.
2026-07-22Suggested-sell flag; a broken thesis turns yellow, never into an order.LAW #40
Companion to the never-sell law. When a holding's story looks dead or fraud surfaces, the desk raises a yellow SUGGESTED-SELL flag on the public holdings table instead of placing any order. The flag states the reason and stays up until the operator acts by hand or a later recheck clears the finding. The desk remains buy-only either way. This turns what used to be an automatic exit into a standing, visible alert: the machine points, the human decides.
2026-07-21Never sell. The desk is buy-only.LAW #39
The operator removed all automatic selling. The desk now places buy orders only and never sells for any reason: not a dead thesis, not fraud, not an option exit, not a profit trim. If a holding's story breaks or fraud appears, the desk flags it for the operator to decide by hand rather than selling. Profit-trim suggestions stay notes only, and every exit is a manual operator decision. This supersedes the earlier rule that auto-closed dead-thesis and option positions. It is the pure hold-forever stance taken to its logical end, paired with the standing commitment to ride drawdowns rather than react to them.
2026-07-21Distress-zone solvency gate; loose tail-only; either agent can fail it.LAW #38
A name fails only if it is genuinely near going to zero: it cannot cover its interest from operations, its debt dwarfs its earnings with no cash to offset, or a bankruptcy-risk score sits clearly in the distress band with no cash cushion. The gate reads real solvency and cash flow, not a single ugly accounting quarter, so a cash-rich company with a one-time or stock-comp charge still passes. A weak but serviceable balance sheet passes; the screen is deliberately loose and removes only the going-to-zero tail. Both agents rate each name and either fail wins; an already-held fail becomes no-add and keeps its shares, never a forced sale. It is downside insurance for a never-sell, equal-weight book, where a single unrecoverable blow-up permanently drags long-run compounding, not a return signal. On adoption day it removed no names: the one apparent fail traced to a stale data window and, on current figures, passed.
2026-07-21Recursive feedback loop gate; a weak loop still passes; either agent can fail it.LAW #37
A name must show a durable, value-creating self-reinforcing loop to stay buy-ready: a data or AI flywheel, network effects, ecosystem or platform lock-in, a scale-economies flywheel, or a learning-curve cost loop. A weak but real loop still passes; only a clear absence, or a self-defeating capital loop that issues shares into its own premium, fails. Both agents rate each name and either fail wins. Already-held fails become no-add and keep their shares; never-held fails stay off the menu. Not an automatic sell. The gate is orthogonal to the quality and cost-curve screens: it separates businesses that compound their own advantage from linear beneficiaries of a spending wave.
2026-07-21Recursive feedback loop gate (weak equals pass; either agent can fail)ADOPTED
The operator adopted a required buy gate for self-reinforcing business loops: a name must show a durable, value-creating flywheel such as a data or AI feedback loop, network effects, platform lock-in, scale economies, or a learning-curve cost loop. Weak but real still passes; a clear absence, or a capital loop that issues shares into its own premium, fails. Both agents rate every name and either fail wins. The operator adopted it stronger than filed: the proposal asked for a scoring tiebreaker and the operator made it a hard gate. On adoption day four names flipped to no-add under the veto; held fails keep their shares. Public rule log entry 37.
2026-07-21Distress-zone solvency gate (loose, tail-only)ADOPTED
The operator adopted the distress component of a five-gate junk-avoidance study as a required buy gate. A name fails only if genuinely near going to zero: interest not covered from operations, debt dwarfing earnings with no cash offset, or a clearly distressed bankruptcy-risk score with no cash cushion. The screen reads solvency and cash flow, not one ugly accounting quarter, so a cash-rich company with a one-time charge still passes. On adoption day it removed no names: the single apparent fail traced to a stale data window and passed on current figures, a phantom fail the two-agent check caught. The study's other four gates remain queued for the operator. Public rule log entry 38.
2026-07-21Remove all automatic selling; the desk is buy-onlyADOPTED
The operator struck every automatic sell from the live law. The desk now places buy orders only: no dead-thesis exit, no fraud exit, no option exit, no profit trim. A broken story or suspected fraud gets flagged to the operator, who sells by hand if ever; trim ideas stay notes. This supersedes the earlier auto-sell-on-written-triggers law and accepts the full implication that a blow-up rides down unless the human acts. It is the hold-forever stance taken to its logical end, paired with the standing commitment to ride drawdowns rather than react to them. Public rule log entry 39.
2026-07-21Hard cap on menu size at 10, 20, or 30 namesREJECTED
A five-year, lookahead-clean simulation tested capping the buy menu at 10, 20, or 30 names under several selection methods. Every capped routing arm trailed the uncapped equal-split book at similar or worse drawdown, and the flashy small-menu winner collapsed under ablation: deleting its own two anchor names erased a thirty-point lead, pure survivorship luck. The uncapped book kept most of its edge even after deleting its two biggest winners. The portfolio literature agreed independently: a wider screened menu buys more right-tail tickets, and equal weighting is the allocation you cannot reliably beat. Verdict: no cap. Let the quality gate set the count; if the eligible list runs thin, loosen the gate rather than concentrate. A soft target band stays queued for the operator.
2026-07-21Ten quantitative quality gates as return boostersREJECTED
Ten numeric quality screens, including a rule-of-40 test, margin floors, profitability ratios, a nine-point fundamentals score, leverage caps, and dilution caps, were backtested on the live menu over about five years. None improved returns out of sample, and two of the strongest academic factors actively destroyed return here because they tilt away from the book's asset-heavy infrastructure winners. The honest payoff of quality screens is blow-up avoidance and shallower drawdowns, not higher growth. One gate, an anti-dilution cap on share-count growth, was judged worth queueing for the operator as a shadow-first check; the other nine were skipped.
2026-07-19Pelosi disclosed holdings feed the candidate list; quality gates still decide buys.LAW #36
Every desk run refreshes publicly disclosed Nancy and Paul Pelosi U.S. equity underliers from STOCK Act trackers into a standing feed file. New names enter the menu queue and must clear the same quality filters and innovation cost-curve gate as any other candidate before they can go on deck. Already-owned menu names keep their normal daily recheck. The desk never buys just because the Pelosi book holds a ticker; both agents must still agree buy-ready before any equal-split share. Indexes, non-U.S. listings, and option contracts are skipped or mapped to the underlying stock only. Her selling is not an automatic lab exit.
2026-07-18Operator rescinded the 30% concentration note.LAW #35
Entry 31 is not live law. The operator rejected the optional 30% trim-suggestion rule after it had been published. The desk still stops new buys at 20% of lab market value and still notes optional trims at plus 50% and plus 100% versus cost. No separate 30% concentration note.
2026-07-18Innovation cost-curve gate; weak exposure still passes; either agent can fail it.LAW #34
Alongside the usual quality filters, a name must clear an innovation cost-curve screen to stay buy-ready: multi-year unit-cost collapse or step-function productivity as a core or material business (chips, AI infrastructure and power, automation software, and the like). A weak but real exposure still passes; only a clear fail blocks new buys. Both agents rate each name; if either says fail, that wins. Already-held fails become no-add (keep shares); never-held fails stay off the menu. Not an automatic sell. Five-year sims showed a pure fail-basket lagging badly, while requiring only a hard fail-out is a mild theme tilt versus the full haystack.
2026-07-18If a followed researcher sells an entire position, the desk holds off buys for three months.LAW #33
When a standing research source says they sold out of a name completely (not a partial trim), the desk marks that ticker hold-only for about ninety days: keep any shares already owned, stop new buys, exclude it from the equal-split. When the clock ends, the name goes back through the normal daily quality filters; a pass can restore buy-ready, a soft fail keeps no-add, and a dead thesis still forces a full exit. The source selling is not by itself an automatic sell for the desk.
2026-07-18Research pulls always hunt permanent process rules, not only tickers.LAW #32
Every standing research pull must fully read the source body, then do two jobs: extract buy-context names for the menu, and scan for permanent process ideas (sizing, when to add cash, hold rules, quality gates, hard bans). Candidates go to a private queue for the operator; nothing becomes law until that yes. Each pull must end with an explicit scan line so a ticker-only pass counts as incomplete.
2026-07-18Concentration free-insurance note at 30% (later rescinded).LAW #31
A note-only idea: if any name reached 30% of lab market value, the steward would suggest an optional trim toward 20% without placing a sell. It was published as entry 31, then the operator rejected it the same day. See entry 35. The hard 20% no-add rule (stop new buys) remains live; the 30% note does not.
2026-07-18Proposed rules are filed for the operator, never auto-adopted.LAW #30
When the two desk agents both think a new standing rule might help, they file it in a private proposed-rules queue instead of changing live law. The operator reviews, confirms, or denies. Nothing becomes desk law until that yes.
2026-07-18Per-name written kill conditions on buy-ready namesREJECTED
A proposal to attach a pre-written kill condition to every buy-ready name was denied by the operator. The daily filter recheck already re-screens every held and buy-ready name each run, so per-name kill lines would add authoring and judgment surface without adding protection. The desk keeps the simpler standing loop: recheck daily, stop buys on a soft fail, and flag anything worse to the operator.
2026-07-18Innovation cost-curve gate (weak equals pass; either agent can fail)ADOPTED
The operator adopted a required buy gate alongside the usual quality filters: a name must clear an innovation cost-curve screen (multi-year unit-cost collapse or step-function productivity as a core or material business). Weak but real exposure still passes. Both agents rate each name; if either says fail, that wins. Held fails become no-add (keep shares); never-held fails stay off the menu. Not an automatic sell. Public rule log entry 34. Immediate flips included no-add on two held names and a fail on one on-deck name.
2026-07-1830 percent concentration free-insurance noteREJECTED
A proposed note-only rule at 30 percent of lab market value was pressure-tested with a full menu simulation and briefly published as rule log entry 31. The operator then rejected it the same day. Forcing trims on concentrated stress paths destroyed moonshot returns in sim; the optional note was judged not worth keeping as law. The hard 20 percent no-add cap (stop new buys) remains. Rescind recorded as public rule log entry 35.
2026-07-18Pullback-timed extra deposit suggestionADOPTED
Both agents agreed a steward suggestion when the index sits 7 percent or more under its 20-day high is a real, low-cost edge for optional extra cash. Capital-matched tests showed pullback-only extras beat a broader volatility trigger, and every version of holding back scheduled deposits lost. Adopted as a dashboard banner and steward note only: the operator decides; nothing auto-pulls money. Public rule log entry 29. (Superseded on trigger asset by the 2026-07-28 lab-book retune above; still historical record.)
2026-07-18Alternative deploy and sell overlays vs equal-split holdREJECTED
A joint multi-agent study stress-tested dip-waiting, buy-the-laggard, momentum ranking, inverse-vol sizing, profit trims, trailing stops, tax-loss harvest, and forced rebalance against Plan C equal-split over 24 months. Laggard-buying only won via survivorship on one name; aggressive sell rules lost; equal-split hold survived as law. No process change except the two adopted suggestion notes filed the same day.
2026-07-17Two-agent agree before every deploy; disagreements are public.LAW #28
Before any cash is deployed, the desk agent and a second agent both score every menu name. If either says fail, no-add, or hold, that call wins. Buy-ready for the equal-split requires both to say buy-ready. When they disagree, the name is parked and both calls (who said what) are logged on the public dashboard. If the second agent is unreachable, the desk agent deploys alone and notes the solo run.
2026-07-17Two-agent deploy gate before every cash deployADOPTED
The operator adopted a standing dual-score rule for every equal-split deploy. Before cash moves, the steward finishes its quality-gate calls, then the red team independently scores every menu name (buy-ready, no-add, fail, or hold). If either says fail, no-add, or hold, that call wins. Buy-ready for the deploy requires both. Disagreement parks the name and publishes who said what on the public Deploy gate table. If the red team cannot answer, the steward solo deploys on its own buy-ready set and logs the solo run so the desk is not frozen. Adopted as live law the same day; equal-split arithmetic is unchanged.
2026-07-16No permanent equity ticker bans; recheck every held name.LAW #27
A prior permanent no-buy carve-out on one legacy holding was retired. Every name still held is rechecked on the same quality gates each run. Soft fails stop new buys and keep shares; a later pass restores buy-ready status. Dead thesis still forces a full exit. Options underlier quality rules stay separate.
2026-07-16Full video-body ingest; seven-day gate dedup.LAW #26
Standing YouTube must be read from the spoken video body via transcript or auto-captions, not title or social caption alone. The window for skipping a re-score of a recent fail or hold-only result is seven days, not thirty, unless new material facts appear. Buy-ready names are still rechecked every run.
2026-07-16Buy-context only; skip sell and avoid mentions.LAW #25
Ticker extract from standing sources only counts names the source is buying, long, or adding. Names that appear only in sell, exit, avoid, or do-not-buy context are not queued for the quality gates. Video body and captions beat clickbait titles. A same-day miss on a buy name was fixed and promoted to buy-ready after a pass.
2026-07-15Every ticker named by followed sources gets the quality gates.LAW #24
Standing sources can surface new names. The desk must extract each equity ticker and run the same filters the same day. A pass puts the name on deck for the next equal-split deploy. A fail records the gate and keeps it off the buy button. Already owning the stock in another account is never a reason to skip the screen.
2026-07-14One-shot verdict confirmed by a robustness pass.LAW #23
A second same-day study randomized two thousand possible menu-add histories and re-ran the comparison; the one-shot's apparent edge dissolved into schedule luck, a coin flip with extra noise. Published research on index additions and diversification agrees. Equal-split stays law; the one-shot remains optional ops only.
2026-07-14New-ticker one-shot deploy evaluated; not adopted.LAW #22
The operator proposed that when new names join the buy menu, the next deposit should go entirely to the newcomers once, then return to equal-split. A five-year staged-menu backtest plus Monte Carlo found a tiny, path-dependent edge that loses most rolling windows. Rejected as standing law; allowed as a one-time convenience when opening zero-share names.
2026-07-14New-ticker one-shot deploy on menu addsREJECTED
The operator proposed that whenever new names join the buy menu, the very next deposit should go entirely to the newcomers, split evenly, then revert to standard equal-split. Two independent studies ran the same day: a five-year staged-menu backtest showed a small edge, and a second pass that randomized two thousand possible menu-add histories showed that edge was schedule luck, a coin flip wearing a lab coat. Published research agrees: freshly added names carry no tailwind after joining a list, and spreading each deposit across the whole menu keeps the odds of feeding the eventual winners. Rejected as standing law; permitted as a one-time convenience when opening zero-share names, worth about one lunch either way.
2026-07-13Buy-only rebalance rejected as standing law.LAW #21
Backtests plus a thousand-path Monte Carlo showed that steering each deposit toward the most underweight names wins only on lucky start dates and loses most windows, with identical drawdowns. Equal-split across the menu stays law. A momentum tilt showed the only persistent edge signal and stays parked pending the beat-the-benchmark checkpoint.
2026-07-13Daily recheck; failed filters stop new buys.LAW #20
Every steward run rechecks names the desk still holds or marks buy-ready. If a name fails the quality gates but is not a dead thesis, the desk stops buying more of it and keeps the shares (no automatic sell on a soft fail). A later pass restores buy-ready status. Dead thesis or fraud still forces a full exit.
2026-07-13Auto quality gates on new menu names; two names cleared.LAW #19
Any new or queued ticker must run the desk quality gates as soon as it appears. A pass promotes it to buy-ready for the next equal-split deploy; a fail keeps it off the buy button and records the failing gate. Calendar phase hints no longer block a completed pass. The two names that had been waiting on a later phase both passed the same day and are open on the menu for the next deploy.
2026-07-13Buy-only rebalance and ranked underweight deploysREJECTED
After a menu widen opened three names at zero weight, the desk stress-tested whether each deposit should chase the most underweight holdings (buy-only rebalance) instead of pure equal-split. Full-history biweekly cash sims over about one year, plus four hundred block-bootstrap paths, put equal-split ahead by roughly ten percentage points of return on injected capital, with only a mildly worse drawdown. Underweight top-two and top-three ladders lagged further. Dip-first and momentum-first top-two rules printed the highest raw returns but drove single-name weight near a third of the book, which fails the desk's concentration and behavior tests. Auto price trims and a trailing stop also underperformed hold. Standing law stays equal-split across the buy menu; evening weights via purchases only and ranking deploys by underweight, dip, or momentum remain rejected as defaults. A one-shot catch-up after a menu widen is optional tactics, not a rewrite of the law.
2026-07-13Dip-first and momentum-first deploy as standing lawREJECTED
The same bake-off crowned dip and momentum deploy variants on raw return in a strong tech year. The red team rejected promoting either to law: end weights and Monte Carlo left tails were worse than equal-split, and both rules reintroduce judgment and regime risk the steward is not allowed to freestyle. They stay in the graveyard next to hybrid ranked-deploy.
2026-07-11Pruned dead language from the law.LAW #18
The live rulebook was cleaned to one canonical plan name, all short-options process was removed (short-dated options remain banned outright), and hybrid deploy language was deleted. The append-only history keeps old lessons visible without re-authorizing retired tactics.
2026-07-11Plan C approved as live law.LAW #17
Equal-split deploy across every eligible buy-menu name went live, replacing ranked deploys. Price-based trims demoted to note-only. Menu widened by three names first, with two more named for a later phase pending quality checks (those two later passed and are buy-ready; see the 2026-07-13 rule). One legacy name locked to hold-only. Added a 20% single-name no-add cap and an every-run check for ad-hoc deposits. A hybrid ranked-deploy proposal was rejected as spec-fragile.
2026-07-11Hybrid ranked-deploy proposalREJECTED
A proposal to rank each deploy (part equal-split, part momentum and underweight logic) was rejected as spec-fragile: it needed too many judgment calls per run, and every judgment call is a place where an automated steward can drift. The desk adopted pure equal-split as law instead, with a narrow ops-degradation fallback that is explicitly not a ranker.
2026-07-11Short options and sub-365-day optionsREJECTED
The original options lab was re-run as a twelve-month simulation under generous assumptions and still netted roughly zero while a simple SPY drip gained over 11%. Short options and any option under 365 days to expiry are now permanently banned; the wins in the record clustered inside a hindsight-contaminated window, so no selection skill was credited. The ban is written into the live law, not just the journal.
2026-07-10First live steward deploy executed.LAW #16
The scheduled steward found $500 of settled cash and deployed all of it the same run, split across two menu names under the then-current ranking rule. Both fills landed in regular hours. Trigger scan came back clean: no trims, no exits.
2026-07-10Regular-hours orders only, two scheduled runs.LAW #15 :: SUPERSEDED BY #41
[No longer in force. Law #41 replaced this.] All orders go in Monday to Friday, 09:30 to 16:00 ET. The 11:49 AM run trades; the 11:49 PM run observes and defers. This avoids overnight queues and open-gap fills far from intended marks.
2026-07-10Minimum cash gate for long-dated options.LAW #14
Long-dated calls are only even considered when free cash is large enough for one full contract; below that, everything goes to equities.
2026-07-10Auto-sell on written triggers.LAW #13 :: SUPERSEDED BY #39
[No longer in force. Law #39 replaced this.] Superseded ask-first selling: agents execute pre-written triggers automatically (thesis dead or fraud is a full exit; long-dated option exits at roughly double the entry or late in life), while anything outside the written list still needs the operator.
2026-07-10Haystack Hold adopted from Monte Carlo research.LAW #12
Hundreds of simulated policy paths compared holding styles. Mostly-hold equity baskets beat tilted and concentrated variants, so the desk adopted: hold a menu of quality names, deploy every deposit quickly, and keep any options exposure to a small, long-dated-only sleeve.
2026-07-10No sells without approval; deploy free cash fully.LAW #11
Agents stopped placing any sell without the operator's yes, and every steward run began deploying the full settled cash balance instead of letting it sit.
2026-07-10Holding style bake-off: haystack vs ranked vs tiltedAGREEMENT
An eleven-agent council plus a Monte Carlo study (hundreds of bootstrapped policy paths over historical windows) compared holding styles head to head. Mostly-hold equal-weight baskets beat conviction-ranked and tier-tilted variants on risk-adjusted outcomes, and the maximum-return variant carried a drawdown profile nobody wanted. The council converged on Haystack Hold: own the menu, keep deploying, stop fiddling.
2026-07-09Long-dated options do not fit a small budget.LAW #10
Structural finding, not situational: near-the-money long-dated calls on lab-priced names cost far more than the deposit size, so the only affordable ones are deep out-of-the-money lottery tickets, which the filler-leg ban already forbids. Real long-dated exposure is a budget decision, gated behind beating SPY first.
2026-07-09Twelve-month simulation rewrote the option rules.LAW #2-9
A full-year simulation of the original short-dated options approach netted roughly zero while a simple SPY drip gained over 11%. Adopted from the evidence: a momentum entry gate (no bottom-fishing entries far below the 52-week high), a ban on filler legs (no tickets under $75 premium, no far out-of-the-money strikes), simplified exits built around a late-life decay kill, a rule that a catalyst only counts if it lands before the exit rules would fire, SPY as the binding benchmark before any sizing up, a take-profit ladder, an independent quality gate for every additional leg, and a regime filter that skips months when the speculative complex is deeply red.
2026-07-09Existing holdings inform, never exclude.LAW #1
Positions held elsewhere by the operator may shape sizing and correlation awareness, but are never a reason to skip the best candidate. Reversed an earlier session that excluded a name for exactly that reason.
2026-07-09Simulation bugs caught in a proposed deploy tweakDISAGREEMENT
The red team audited a proposed change to how deposits get deployed and found three bugs in the supporting simulation: a cold-start artifact, a seed-dependent result, and a missing control run. With the bugs fixed, the corrected numbers flipped the recommendation: the fancier variant lost its edge and a true equal-split deploy won. The proposal was rewritten before anything touched the live account.