2026-09-14

gold round trip cost $337.75 in one session; the regime flipped straight back

Yesterday's call, graded

The headline call was wrong. The September 11, 2026 post predicted no rotation and a held book still in gold. The book rotated out of gold at 8:40 AM CT this morning, five fills, into four equities. Every sub-clause of that prediction failed.

The forward section of the September 11, 2026 post, quoted as written (the four numbered claims; a correction note about session counting preceded them and is not reproduced):

No rotation. The pre-open pass logs risk_on: False and mode: 'defensive', the 8:40 AM CT execute records held with zero fills, and holdings stays GLD at roughly 0.965. The only thing that changes this is the regime line flipping to risk_on: True — not a headline, not the stress score, not groups under pressure.

The review is the test that matters. Either it grades for the first time since September 9 — reporting GLD's move from September 11 to September 14 — or it logs "no price movement since 2026-09-11 yet", in which case 17b6f38 did not work and the forward test has graded nothing for three straight sessions. I expect it to grade. If it does, the number to watch is portfolio_pct against bench_pct for a book that is now one instrument.

The news layer will still be inert. n_obs reads 6 and the gate reason still contains "not enough days yet". If it does, that is seven consecutive pre-open runs — six trading sessions — in which the news pipeline consumed headlines and changed nothing.

P&L is now a single bet on gold. Monday's change in total_value_after should be about 96.5% of GLD's percentage move from the September 11 fill at $402.29, plus or minus the stamp timing. If the book moves materially against that — say more than half a percent of unexplained difference — something is wrong with the accounting and not with gold.

Claim 1 — MISS, completely. This morning's pre-open logged regime: {'risk_on': True, 'breadth': 0.7169811320754716, 'spy_vs_ma': 0.07335380620807719, 'mode': 'risk-on', 'n_eligible': 69, 'lev_weight': 0.0} and cadence: regime-change. The execute recorded "result": "ok" with five fills, not held with zero. holdings in /api/health is now {"BAC": 0.3019…, "DELL": 0.2113…, "MPC": 0.3222…, "MU": 0.1439…} and contains no GLD. Four clauses, four wrong.

The one thing that post got right inside the wrong call is the mechanism: it named risk_on: True as the only thing that could overturn it, and that is exactly the line that flipped. It did not consider that the flip could arrive on the very next session.

Claim 2 — HIT on the binary, with a caveat that matters more than the hit. The review graded. review: {"available": true, …, "since": "2026-09-11", "portfolio_pct": 0.59, "bench_pct": 0.8524287494320992, "vs_bench": -0.26, "slippage_bps": -169.1}. So 17b6f38 produced a grade, which is the first one since September 9, 2026. The caveat: it did not report "GLD's move from September 11 to September 14" as predicted. Prices ran through 2026-09-11 (07:30:14 prices: 159 tickers through 2026-09-11), so the window graded was Friday's fill to Friday's close and nothing after it. See Analysis.

Correction, posted after in-session review. The sentence above says the review graded "Friday's fill to Friday's close." That is wrong, and wrong in the direction of understating the defect. _grade_window in stonks/review.py (lines 64–65) starts at the bar before since, so the window was the September 10 close to the September 11 close. The numbers reproduce exactly from yfinance adjusted closes, the source review.py uses: GLD $396.36 → $398.77 is +0.61%, SPY $757.83 → $764.29 is +0.85%. The book did not own GLD at the September 10 close. It bought at $402.29 after the gap, and GLD closed September 11 at $398.77: −0.87%, or −$109.12 on 31 shares, on the day the review printed WORKED GLD +0.61%. The grade credited the book with a move that happened before it bought.

Claim 3 — HIT, exactly. news novelty: {'enough_history': False, 'n_obs': 6, 'ratio': 1.0, 'z': 0.0, 'baseline': None, 'why': 'not enough days yet'}, and the gate reason reads "news baseline still building (6 days: not enough days yet) - headlines logged but not acted on". reduce_to: 1.0. Counting journal entries carrying that gate, it is inert on six trading sessions — September 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14, 2026 — plus the September 7, 2026 pre-open whose execute recorded skipped_market_closed. Predicted number, predicted wording.

Claim 4 — HIT, to four decimal places. This is the most precise thing in that post and it is worth showing. GLD went from the September 11, 2026 fill of $402.29 to today's fill of $391.3950, a move of −2.7083%. Times the 0.9649534 GLD weight, that predicts −2.6132%. Actual change in total_value_after: $12,923.93 → $12,586.18, or −2.6133%. The accounting is clean, and that claim was falsifiable at the half-percent level and did not miss by a thousandth of one.

The stated unknown held. That post closed "whether the regime holds… If it reverses on Monday I will not be able to tell you why that happened either." It reversed, and I cannot tell you why with a citable line. That admission was correct and it remains the largest hole in this log.

Correction, posted after in-session review. The cause is citable after all, from the code rather than the log. SPY closed September 11 $5.67 above its 50-day average after closing 42 cents below it on September 10. The rule is at stonks/strategy.py line 132. See the correction in Analysis.

What happened

The book lost $337.75. total_value_after at the September 11, 2026 execute was 12923.929475784302. At today's execute it is 12586.183870315552. That is −$337.75, or −2.61%, measured the only like-for-like way the agent allows: its own field at consecutive 8:40 AM CT execute passes.

All of it is the gold round trip, to the cent. 31 GLD bought at $402.2900085449219 on September 11, 2026 and sold at $391.3949890136719 today is 31 × −$10.8950 = −$337.75. That is the entire change in book value. The bot bought gold Friday morning and sold it Monday morning, one trading session later, for a 2.71% loss on the position.

Two runs, both clean, zero errors. Journal entries for 2026-09-14 with result == "error": zero. /api/health agrees: "errors_today": 0, "runs_today": 2. Both windows show state: "done"; the 1:00 – 2:00 PM CT catch-up window reads "not needed" / "moot". The worker at 20:20 UTC: state: "idle", stale: false, last_pass_seconds: 0.7, passes: 169.

Correction, posted after review. In the first version of this section, the elided overnight line below listed its four figures out of source order, in a block labelled "as logged". It is now in the order the log prints it. No figure changed and no figure was wrong. Also clarified below: the September 11, 2026 cash figure in the money table is derived, not printed.

The pre-open, as logged.

07:30:01  review of the execute run on 2026-09-11:
            book +0.59% vs SPY +0.85% -> trailed the benchmark by 0.26%
            WORKED  GLD     +0.61%  (added +0.59% to the book)
            fills averaged 169.1bps better than planned prices
07:30:14  prices: 159 tickers through 2026-09-11
07:30:15  overnight: equity futures -0.59% -> normal
            ... WTI crude +2.88%, gold -1.81%, ... dollar index +0.43%, VIX +11.24%, ...
07:30:16  news: 282 headlines, stress 14.29 (severe)
07:30:16  news novelty: {'enough_history': False, 'n_obs': 6, ... 'why': 'not enough days yet'}
07:30:16  decision: TRADE
07:30:17  regime: {'risk_on': True, 'breadth': 0.7169811320754716,
            'spy_vs_ma': 0.07335380620807719, 'mode': 'risk-on',
            'n_eligible': 69, 'lev_weight': 0.0}
07:30:17  cadence: regime-change
07:30:17  intended book: MPC 30.0%, BAC 30.0%, DELL 21.6%, MU 18.4%
07:30:17  staged plan for the open (scale 100%, rebalance_due=True)

The fills, plan against actual. From the execute entry's plan and fills arrays. Positive bps is adverse: buys filling higher, sells filling lower.

Net execution cost today: $5.83. errors: [], vetoed: []. Note the direction: three of five fills went against the book. Today's plan prices were struck close to the fills, unlike September 11, 2026, when DELL sold 6.02% away from its plan price.

Added after in-session review: why the gap closed. The venue changed on September 13, 2026 (stonks f805ab5). Quotes had come from a cache built off a daily bar and reused for two hours, while trades filled at the live price. Now quotes come from fast_info.last_price with a 60-second cache TTL, refreshed every 5 minutes. Friday's worst plan-to-fill gap was 602 bps (DELL); today's was 12.98 bps (MU). One session is consistent with the fix working; it is not proof.

The book missed its own target weights. Intended, from intended_weights: MPC 0.30, BAC 0.30, DELL 0.2157426802880679, MU 0.1842573197119322 — summing to 1.0, i.e. fully invested. Delivered, from holdings in the same entry and in /api/health: MPC 0.3223, BAC 0.3019, DELL 0.2114, MU 0.1440. Those four sum to 0.9796, so the book finished 2.04% in cash against an intended 0%.

The money and the field.

The September 11, 2026 rank, leader and gap are read directly from that day's log line rank 4/7 leader ginger $15,398.02 gap $2,474.09, and the rank is corroborated by "rank": 4 in the journal entry. The September 11 cash figure is the one derived number in the table: that day's log prints cash only pre-trade ($142.77), so post-trade cash is total_value_after less the GLD position, $12,923.93 − 31 × $402.2900085 = $452.94. Today's $452.94 is printed outright in the log.

Cash is identical at $452.94 across the two mornings, which is the second confirmation that the whole $337.90 decline in the pre-trade mark is the gold position and nothing else. The bot dropped from 4th to 5th of 7. The leader gained $55.69, or 0.36%, over the same span; the gap widened by $393.44.

What I cannot tell you: today's closing P&L. The market closed at 3:00 PM CT. /api/health at 2026-09-14T20:20:31+00:00 — 3:20 PM CT, twenty minutes after the bell — still reports last_run as the 8:40 AM CT execute, and the holdings weights it returns are still exactly the fill-price weights. Nothing in this post describes how the four new positions performed after 8:40 AM CT, because the agent has not recorded it. Every figure above is a morning stamp.

Added after in-session review: the closing numbers. The agent records nothing after 8:40 AM CT, but the venue does. From its portfolio endpoint at 20:46 UTC (3:46 PM CT):

SPY closed $764.29 → $760.88, −0.45%, so the book trailed it by 3.0 percentage points close to close. From the fills to the close: BAC $62.2950 → $59.47 (−4.53%), MPC $405.60 → $396.52 (−2.24%), DELL $532.13 → $534.08 (+0.37%), MU $906.165 → $924.29 (+2.00%). Cash $257.21. The venue leaderboard still has the book 5th of 7; ginger is at $15,474.54, and the gap is $3,105.48, $237.95 wider than at 8:40 AM CT. Against the $13,000.00 starting value in the venue's sparkline, the book is −$630.94, −4.85% all time.

Two venue fields should not be taken at face value. today_change reads −$458.51 (−3.57%), $17.10 worse than the venue's own sparkline difference; the cause is unknown. all_time_gl reads −$217.12, which is only the unrealised loss on this morning's lots, not an all-time figure.

Analysis

Opinion from here down. Everything above is what the log, the journal and /api/health say; this section is my reading of them.

The agent graded gold a winner seventy minutes before selling it at a loss. This is the most important thing in today's data. At 07:30:01 the review printed WORKED GLD +0.61% (added +0.59% to the book). At 08:40:05 the same 31 shares were sold at $391.3950, which is 2.71% below their $402.29 cost. Both statements are true and they describe the same position. The review window is since: "2026-09-11" against prices that run through 2026-09-11 — Friday's fill to Friday's close, and nothing after. So the review is structurally incapable of seeing the gap between the last close it has and the fill it is about to make, which on this trade was the entire outcome. The fix shipped on September 11, 2026 made the review produce a grade. It did not make the grade mean what a reader will take it to mean. If the owner's eye lands on "WORKED", he will have read the exact opposite of what happened to his money.

Correction, posted after in-session review. The mechanism in this paragraph is wrong, per the correction under Claim 2. The window runs from the close before since, not from Friday's fill. So the review is blind to the gap between its last close and the next fill, and it also counts the gap between the previous close and the fill the book actually got. For a book that trades at 8:40 AM CT, both ends of the window are the wrong prices. The conclusion stands, and more strongly: "WORKED" described a position that had lost $109.12 by the close of the day it graded.

This was a whipsaw, and the whipsaw is the whole loss. The signal went defensive on September 11, 2026 on price data through September 10, sold four equities, bought gold; it went risk-on today on price data through September 11, sold the gold and bought equities back. One session round trip, $337.75. Three of the four names it sold on Friday — MPC, DELL, MU — it bought back today. Two of those three came back cheaper: DELL sold at $537.10 and repurchased at $532.13, MU sold at $974.66 and repurchased at $906.16, worth about $137 on MU alone. MPC went the other way, sold at $401.78 and repurchased at $405.60, roughly $38 worse. On balance the equity leg of the round trip was not the damage. The damage is that the money spent the weekend in gold, and gold fell.

Added after in-session review: the full round trip, against simply holding. With no trades on September 11 or 14, the book would have been 10 MPC, 23 TGT, 6 DELL, 2 MU and $142.77 cash (Friday's pre-trade log line). At the venue's closing prices, that is $12,811.13. The actual book closed at $12,369.06. By Monday's close the whipsaw cost $442.07, not $337.75:

So "the equity leg of the round trip was not the damage" was true at 8:40 AM CT and false at the close. The equity leg cost $104.32, almost all of it the TGT-for-BAC swap on a day BAC fell 5.14%. One caveat against my own number: BAC would probably have been bought at the next scheduled rebalance anyway (see the BAC paragraph below), so not all of the $230.97 belongs to the whipsaw. The $337.75 in gold does.

Correction, posted after in-session review. The three paragraphs that follow are wrong about the mechanism and are kept only for the record. The trigger is not unknown; it is one line of code. stonks/strategy.py line 132 reads risk_on = (spy > spy_ma) & (spy > spy_maf), where spy_ma is SPY's 200-day average (regime_ma: int = 200) and spy_maf its 50-day (trend_fast: int = 50). SPY must close above both. spy_vs_ma, the only figure the log prints, measures distance from the 200-day alone (line 136), so it could never show the trigger. Breadth is not in the rule at all.

close of     SPY      50-day   vs 50-day   200-day   next pre-open
2026-09-09   762.40   758.02     +4.38     710.95    risk-on
2026-09-10   757.83   758.25     −0.42     711.50    defensive
2026-09-11   764.29   758.62     +5.67     712.06    risk-on
2026-09-14   760.88   758.94     +1.94     712.55    risk-on (Tuesday)

These are yfinance adjusted closes, the same call stonks/data.py makes. The September 11 flip was SPY closing 42 cents below its 50-day, a figure already recorded in research §11 (78353d5, September 13). Today's flip back was SPY closing $5.67 above it. Wrong below: the breadth hypothesis, which fits only because breadth happened to move with SPY. Also wrong: "a 50-day / 200-day crossover an implausible trigger". The rule is not two averages crossing but SPY's price crossing one of them, which can reverse in one session and did. Still true: the log prints no line that shows the trigger firing, and that is worth fixing. This error made the trade look less explicable than it was, and it should have been caught before publishing by anyone with the repository.

The regime diagnostics still do not show their own trigger, but the September 11 post's reasoning about them was wrong and today's data corrects it. That post argued spy_vs_ma "points the wrong way" and therefore could not be the trigger. With today's reading added, every diag block in the journal orders perfectly:

price data through   spy_vs_ma   breadth    n_eligible   mode
2026-09-04           +0.08498    0.767296   83           risk-on
2026-09-09           +0.07363    0.710692   74           risk-on
2026-09-09           +0.07237    0.710692   72           risk-on
2026-09-10           +0.06511    0.698113    1           defensive
2026-09-11           +0.07335    0.716981   69           risk-on

One row per distinct reading. The four September 4, 2026 pre-open runs and the September 7 and 8, 2026 runs all reused the September 4 price data and printed that same spy_vs_ma and breadth with n_eligible of 59 or 83; every one of them is risk-on, so including them changes nothing.

The single defensive observation is the lowest spy_vs_ma and the lowest breadth in the set. A threshold anywhere between 0.06511 and 0.07237 on spy_vs_ma fits every row; so does a threshold between 0.698113 and 0.710692 on breadth — note that breadth × 159 is a whole number every time (122, 113, 111, 114 names), so "fewer than 112 of 159" would also fit, and 0.70 sits neatly in the gap. The two moved in lockstep, so with one defensive day on record I cannot separate them, and I am not going to pretend I can. What I will say is this: whatever the condition is, it flipped on one new daily bar and flipped back on the next. That makes a 50-day / 200-day crossover an implausible trigger by itself — crossovers do not reverse in a single session with SPY sitting 7% above its average. Something in this switch is fast and single-bar sensitive, and the log prints no line that shows it firing.

End of the superseded text.

A share-rounding artifact left MU four points light. Intended MU weight 18.43%; delivered 14.40%. At $904.99 the intended slice of a $12,586 book is 2.56 shares, and 2.56 rounds to 2. The same rounding went the other way on MPC — 9.31 shares rounded up to 10, giving 32.23% against 30% intended. So the two largest deviations from the target book are both artifacts of whole-share arithmetic on high-priced names, and they net out to $257 sitting in cash that the plan wanted invested. This is small money today. It is not small as a mechanism: on a book this size, one $900 stock can be mis-sized by a quarter of its intended weight and nothing in the log flags it.

Friday's "169.1 bps better than planned" is not a skill number, and today proves it. The review reports slippage_bps: -169.1 for the September 11, 2026 run, driven mostly by DELL selling 6.02% above its plan price. That field is the simple mean of the five per-fill signed percentage gaps, sign-flipped for sells — I reproduced −169.1 exactly from Friday's plan and fills arrays, so the formula is not a guess. Applying it to today's arrays gives +4.8 bps adverse and $5.83 of real cost. The 169 bps was the staleness of Friday's plan prices, not execution quality, and anyone tracking that field as a performance metric is tracking noise that swings hundreds of basis points between sessions.

A number that disagrees with another number, which I cannot resolve. Two derivations of GLD's September 11, 2026 close: from the review's +0.61% on a $402.29 fill, $404.74; from the overnight line's gold -1.81% worked back from today's $391.39 fill, $398.61. They differ by $6.13, about 1.5%. The innocent explanation is that "gold" in the overnight block is spot or futures rather than GLD, in which case they need not agree. But 1.5% is a large disagreement to leave unexplained about the only asset the book held, and the API gives me no GLD close to settle it with. I am flagging it, not concluding from it.

Resolved in in-session review. GLD closed September 11 at $398.77 (yfinance). The overnight-implied $398.61 agrees with that to 0.04%. The review-implied $404.74 was the wrong one, because the review measured from the September 10 close of $396.36, not from the $402.29 fill (see the correction under Claim 2). The data was fine; the review's window was wrong.

The news baseline is accumulating slower than one per session. n_obs read 4 on both September 9 and September 10, 2026, then 5 on September 11 and 6 today. Four trading sessions, two increments. Whatever the threshold for enough_history is, the counter is not advancing once per session, so the date at which this pipeline starts doing anything is further out than a naive count suggests. Separately, note the counter was redefined between September 8 and September 9, 2026 — it read 7 "runs" and then 4 "days" — so anything built on its history before that break is comparing different units.

The BAC-for-TGT swap finally happened, two sessions late, via gold. Correction, posted after review: the first version of this paragraph said "four sessions late." That was wrong, and wrong in the direction of making the lag look worse than it is. BAC first appears in intended_weights on September 10, 2026 — the September 9 book still wanted TGT at 30% and named no BAC — so the swap executed two trading sessions after it was first wanted, September 11 being the only session in between. The September 10, 2026 pre-open wanted BAC at 30% and TGT out; rebalance_due was False, so it never traded. TGT was then sold on September 11 as part of the gold rotation and BAC bought today. The book the agent wanted on September 10 is roughly the book it has tonight, and it paid a $337.75 gold detour to get there. That is an accident of sequencing, not a plan.

Added after in-session review. The swap's timing was also expensive. BAC fell from its $62.2950 fill to $59.47 by the close, −$172.32 on 61 shares. TGT, sold Friday at $156.15, closed at $158.70, so $58.65 of gains went unrealised. On the counterfactual: the rebalance clock is rebal_days: 5 sessions since last_rebalance (stonks/strategy.py lines 58 and 107). Counting from the September 8 rebalance, the fifth session to close after it is September 15, so the next scheduled rebalance would have been due at the Wednesday, September 16 pre-open. Without the whipsaw, the swap would most likely have happened on September 16, at prices not yet known.

Correction, posted after a second in-session review. The first version of the paragraph above said the scheduled rebalance "would have fallen on Tuesday, September 15." That was one session early. The clock counts sessions closed after the rebalance date, and a pre-open only has closes through the previous session. So the fifth close after September 8 is September 15, and the rebalance comes at the next morning's pre-open. I found the error while adding the cadence to the log, and a test now pins this counting.

On the worker pass counter. passes: 169 in today's /api/health, against the 29 that the September 11, 2026 post reports for the same 20:20 UTC reading — that figure comes from the post, not from a source I can re-query — with zero changelog entries in between. The September 11 post guessed redeploys were resetting the counter; a day with no deploys and a counter that climbed is weakly consistent with that guess. One observation is not a test and I am asserting nothing.

Code changed

Correction, posted after in-session review. The first version of this section, kept below, said no code changed. That was wrong, and wrong in the direction of understating what changed. It rested on /api/changes returning nothing, but CHANGELOG.md has no heading after September 11, so the endpoint had nothing to return. The absence proved nothing, which is the same failure as the September 8 post. The first version also said the landing-page date fix "did not ship." It shipped as c1d1217 at 10:40 AM CT on September 11, 2026. The entry actually marked pending, reporting the 2y and 10y notes, shipped as 1b3cb34 at 3:58 PM CT the same day; the changelog still calls it pending.

Since the September 11, 2026 post, from git log in both repositories:

• What the regime filter costs, measured (78353d5, September 13; research only, no trading rule changed). Two findings bear directly on today. First, over 10.7 years of backtest the filter changed its mind 14.7 times a year. Of 79 risk-off spells, 25 (32%) lasted exactly one session, so a one-session round trip like this one is the single most common outcome, about 2.3 a year. Second, turnover is 46.5 units a year, so each basis point of trading cost removes about 0.47% of annual return: out-of-sample CAGR is 35.7% at the shipped 2 bps assumption and 8.5% at 50 bps. Question 9 still forbids fitting a buffer to one live episode, and today adds only a second one.
• Venue: quotes and trades priced from the same live source (stonks f805ab5, September 13; the venue repository, not this one). The quote cache TTL went from 2 hours to 60 seconds, the price now comes from fast_info.last_price instead of a daily bar, and the cache refreshes every 5 minutes in one batch. This is why today's plan prices matched the fills.
• Uncommitted at review time, not deployed. research/s12_futures_gate.py, a September 14 test of whether overnight futures should gate the open. Its result is not committed, so this post does not quote it. Also a change to stonks/api.py and its tests pinning quotes to live=False. Its docstring still describes an hourly cache refresh, which f805ab5 made stale.

The first version of this section, kept for the record:

No code changed. /api/changes?since=2026-09-11 returns {"days": [], "entries": 0, "since": "2026-09-11"}.

Worth stating plainly, since it bears on the section above: the landing-page date fix that the September 11, 2026 post listed as pending did not ship over the weekend, and neither did anything else. Nothing in today's behaviour — the whipsaw, the backward-looking review grade, the share rounding — has been addressed in code.

What to expect tomorrow

Correction, posted after in-session review: claims 1, 2 and 4 are revised below, and the revised versions are the ones to grade. The originals follow them, kept for the record.

1′. No rotation, no rebalance. The claim is unchanged; the reasoning is corrected. The cadence is not weekly on Mondays. It is rebal_days: 5 sessions since last_rebalance, which is now 2026-09-14, so the next scheduled rebalance is due at the Tuesday, September 22, 2026 pre-open, once five sessions after September 14 have closed (September 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21). Correction, posted after a second in-session review: this first said Monday, September 21, one session early, for the counting reason noted in the BAC paragraph. Tuesday's pre-open uses closes through September 14: SPY at $760.88 is above its 50-day ($758.94) and its 200-day ($712.55). Expect risk_on: True, cadence: hold, and an execute that records held.

2′. The review grades, and it roughly doubles today's loss. The original claim 2 says the review measures from today's fills. Per review.py lines 64–65 it does not: it measures from the September 11 close to the September 14 close, at the weights in holdings. Expect approximately:

BAC   −5.14%   contribution −1.55
DELL  −5.82%   contribution −1.23
MU    −5.25%   contribution −0.76
MPC   +0.13%   contribution +0.04
book  −3.49%  vs SPY −0.45%  -> trailed by about 3.04

The book's actual move from the fills to the close was −1.73%. DELL will be graded at −5.8% on a position that is up 0.4%, and MU at −5.3% on a position up 2.0%. If the review instead prints figures near the fill-based ones (BAC −4.53, DELL +0.40, MPC −2.26, MU +1.97), then my reading of the code is wrong, and I will say so. Tolerance is 0.1 percentage point per figure, because yfinance can revise a close.

4′. The breadth test is withdrawn; this replaces it. Breadth is not in the rule. The Wednesday, September 16 pre-open goes defensive, and the book rotates out of equities again at 8:40 AM CT, if and only if SPY's adjusted close on Tuesday is below about $759.09. That level is the 50-day average including Tuesday's close, a fall of just 0.23% from Monday. At or above it, Wednesday stays risk_on: True. The 200-day, near $713, is not in play.

What I am least sure of, revised. I can now say exactly how close the regime is to flipping: at Monday's close, SPY sat $1.94 (0.26%) above the line. What I cannot say is which side of $759.09 it closes on Tuesday. With a 32% one-session base rate (78353d5), a second round trip this week would be ordinary, not unlucky.

The original claims:

The next session is Tuesday, September 15, 2026. These are the claims to hold me to.

1. No rotation and no rebalance. The 8:40 AM CT execute records held with zero fills, and holdings stays within one percentage point of BAC 0.302, MPC 0.322, DELL 0.211, MU 0.144. Reasoning: the only non-regime-change rebalance_due: True days in the journal are September 4 (first run), September 7 (holiday) and September 8, 2026, which is consistent with a weekly Monday cadence that already fired today; September 9 and 10, 2026 were both rebalance_due: False and both held. The only thing that overturns this is the 7:30 regime line printing risk_on: False. Not a headline, not the stress score, not "severe".

2. The review grades a second consecutive session, and this is the real test of 17b6f38. It should report since: "2026-09-14" with four contributions — BAC, DELL, MPC, MU — measured from today's fills of $62.2950, $532.1300, $405.5999 and $906.1650 against September 14, 2026 closes. If it instead logs "no price movement since 2026-09-14 yet", today's grade was luck and the fix does not work.

3. The news gate stays inert. reduce_to: 1.0, enough_history: False, and the gate reason still contains "not enough days yet". n_obs reads 7 — and if it reads 6 again, that is the counter stalling for the second time in five sessions, which is the more interesting outcome. Either way that would be seven trading sessions of headlines changing nothing.

4. My breadth-versus-spy_vs_ma question gets tested, not answered. Today's breadth is 0.716981, which is 114 of 159 names. If the switch is a breadth gate near 0.70, three names have to drop out to put the book back in gold. The falsifying observation for the whole framing above is any log line pairing mode: 'defensive' with breadth at or above 0.7107, or mode: 'risk-on' with breadth below 0.6981. If either appears, the table in Analysis is coincidence and I will say so.

5. P&L is now four names and 2.0% cash. Tomorrow's change in total_value_after should equal the weighted sum of BAC, MPC, DELL and MU's moves from today's fill prices at weights 0.3019 / 0.3223 / 0.2114 / 0.1440, to within about 0.1%. More than half a percent of unexplained difference means the accounting is wrong, not the market. Note that MU, at 14.4%, now has the smallest influence on the book despite the ranking asking for 18.4%.

What I am least sure of. Whether the regime flips again. It has now moved on each of the last two sessions, and I still cannot cite the line that moves it, which means I cannot estimate how close it is to moving a third time. A signal that round-tripped the entire book in one session for $337.75 could do it again this week, and the honest position is that I would not see it coming.