Jarvis

# Weekly Flight Log — Paper Allocation Bot **Period:** 31 Aug → 07 Sep 2026 (7 days) · **Runs:** 30 total, 15 produced decisions > All figures are paper money. The account was funded with a notional **1,000,000 HKD** deposit; USD values below are a paper FX approximation, so treat exact dollar amounts as indicative, not audited. --- ## Posture & performance (per sleeve, vs its mandate) Think of this like the two of us flying with different rulebooks. One sleeve is your steady autopilot; the other is your hand-flown, opportunistic profile with a lower ceiling on how far it can improvise. **Conservative sleeve** — mandate: capital protection, only act on corroborated signals. - Closed-trade record this week: **41 closed trades, net +$66.04, 5 wins.** Modestly green — mandate satisfied. - Notice something: only 5 of 41 closed trades were "wins," yet the sleeve is net *positive*. That tells us the winners were bigger than the losers, and that many "closes" were **time-stop exits**, not losses — the clock ran out on a holding period, not the thesis. - Open book is quietly healthy: DIA +$31.74, SPY +$34.30, NANC +$24.30 are the workhorses; small drags on IWM (−$7.78), VOO (−$7.24), XLE (−$1.02). Net unrealised is comfortably positive. **Aggressive sleeve** — mandate: opportunistic, may self-initiate under a tighter cap. - Closed-trade record: **72 closed trades, net −$256.43, 26 wins.** In the red this week. - Higher activity (72 vs 41 closes) is expected here, but the negative net is the honest headline. The sleeve churned more and paid for it. - Open book is currently carrying the recovery: EEM is the star at **+$229.22** (its big conviction trade), plus NANC, VOO, QQQ, DIA all slightly green. The one sore spot is XLE at **−$35.28**. - Read across the two: the aggressive open positions look fine *right now*, but the realised (closed) ledger shows the cost of trading more actively in a choppy tape. --- ## What was decided, and why The dominant theme this week was **discipline, not opportunity**. A large batch of closes were forced by **time stops** — a rule that closes a position once it's been held past its allowed window, regardless of whether the signal is still bullish. - **Conservative closes:** IWM, EFA, NANC, VOO — several closed *despite still showing a BUY signal*, purely because the hold clock expired. That's the mandate working as designed: it refuses to let a position drift indefinitely. - **Aggressive closes:** IWM, EFA, GOP — same logic, with the added flavour of "free up cash to redeploy into conviction," which in this sleeve meant **EEM** repeatedly. - **The EEM story:** the aggressive sleeve leaned into EEM again and again (dual BUY signal — breakout + vol_regime — plus real momentum). That single decision is currently the largest positive contributor in the whole book (+$229). - **What it did NOT do (important):** the conservative sleeve **held its hand constantly** — the vast majority of conservative "decisions" were HOLDs (131 of them). Repeatedly it saw a BUY signal but *declined to add* because the position was already underwater, or the trend was down, or volatility was too high for its mandate. That restraint is the feature, not a bug. Examples: it left QQQ alone at 24–26% volatility; it wouldn't double into a losing GLD without signal confirmation. - **TLT was cut in both sleeves** on a genuine SELL signal (sma_crossover flip) — a clean, corroborated exit, not a time stop. --- ## Self-initiated vs corroborated — is the AI's own judgment earning its keep? This is the number you're really evaluating, so let's be precise. - **Conservative self-initiated: 0.** Every single action was signal-backed. Exactly what this sleeve should do. - **Aggressive self-initiated: 1.** One trade — an **IWM ADD** — where the AI acted on its *own* reasoning with no active strategy signal behind it. Its stated logic: the signal had "recently flipped," IWM held a small unrealised gain, and small-cap breadth "adds diversification." Honest verdict: **one self-initiated trade is too small a sample to conclude anything.** The bot stayed almost entirely inside corroborated territory, which is reassuring. The one time it improvised, the reasoning was *thin* — "vol_regime absence is temporary" is a hope, not evidence. I'd want to see how that specific IWM add resolves before giving the AI's independent judgment any credit. Right now it hasn't earned or lost its keep; it's barely been tested. And notably, the autonomy cap intervened once (see Risk events), meaning the system *wanted* to self-initiate more and was held back by its own guardrail. --- ## What I'm watching / uncertain about - **Aggressive realised losses (−$256).** The open book looks fine, but the closed ledger is bleeding. If churn from time-stop exits keeps realising small losses faster than winners bank, that's a pattern to catch early. - **A data anom