Jarvis

# Weekly Flight Log — Paper Allocation Bot **Period:** 7 Sep 2026 → 14 Sep 2026 · 28 runs, 23 producing decisions *Paper trading only. No live money. FX note: the account was funded with 1,000,000 HKD; all figures below are USD paper approximations of that.* --- ## Posture & performance (per sleeve, vs its mandate) Think of this week as flying through low cloud with no clear horizon. The instruments (our strategy signals) went quiet — nearly everything read **zero conviction** — so the bot mostly held station and did not push the throttle. **Conservative sleeve** *(mandate: steady, protect capital, only act on corroborated signals)* - Closed positions realised **+$103.23** across 10 closes (5 winners). Net positive, which is the mandate working. - Ended the week thin by design: only **DIA, GOP, SPY, XLE** left standing, with small unrealised losses except XLE (+$2.22). Total book roughly $20.5k. - This matches the mandate: when signals faded and time stops fired, it flattened rather than reached for trades. **Aggressive sleeve** *(mandate: opportunistic, fuller deployment, may self-initiate under a tighter cap)* - Closed positions realised **+$160.00** across 17 closes (10 winners). Also net positive. - Holds a broad book of 11 names (~$63k). All positions are slightly underwater except **XLE (+$130.68)**, which is the one genuine winner and, notably, the position the bot most consistently wanted to hold. - Largest drag is **TLT (–$183.69)** — a big 117-share bond position that repeatedly got trimmed as the weakest-conviction holding. **Bottom line:** both sleeves are green on realised P&L and slightly red on open positions, in a broadly-down, no-signal week. That's an acceptable outcome for a week with no edge. --- ## What was decided, and why The dominant story is **time stops**, not conviction. A time stop is a rule that says "this position has been open long enough — close it and re-decide," regardless of view. **84 time-stop events** fired this week — by far the biggest driver of activity. - Many "CLOSE" decisions you'll see in the data are the bot **agreeing with a forced close** — often at 0.0 conviction, essentially saying "this is happening anyway; I concur." That's honest bookkeeping, not active conviction. - A handful of genuine **OPENs** happened when a signal briefly flipped to BUY (e.g. conservative QQQ, GOP; aggressive SPY, QQQ, EFA). These were low-size, low-conviction entries (0.25–0.7). - The latest run summary is the clearest snapshot: multiple time stops firing, **all strategy signals at zero conviction, prices broadly down → HOLD everything, open nothing new.** The key teaching point: **the bot chose not to trade much because there was nothing to trade on.** Holding because there's no edge is a decision, and the right one here. --- ## Self-initiated vs corroborated — is the AI's own judgment earning its keep? This is the part you're really evaluating. "Self-initiated" = the AI acted on its own reasoning with **no strategy signal backing it.** **Counts this week:** - Conservative: **3 self-initiated** (all TLT/EFA opens) - Aggressive: **4 self-initiated** (SPY, TLT, EFA, EEM opens) **What the self-initiated trades had in common:** all were **diversification plays** — low book correlation (TLT ~0.13–0.23, EFA ~0.48) or a momentum leader (EEM +5.8%). Conviction was uniformly **low (0.2–0.55)**, and the rationales were honest about their own weakness ("downward 20-day trend limits conviction," "minimal but real support"). **My read:** the AI's independent judgment was *disciplined but not yet proven.* It self-initiated only into things it could justify on portfolio-construction grounds, at small size, and it stayed under its cap (the self-init cap tripped **twice** — see Risk events, meaning it wanted to self-initiate more and was correctly stopped). That's the behaviour you want to see. But because the week had no clear direction, **we don't yet have evidence these self-initiated bets made money** — several (TLT especially) are among the current losers. Verdict: judgment is *behaving well*, earnings-verdict *not proven*. --- ## What I'm watching / uncertain about - **TLT is the problem child.** The aggressive sleeve holds 117 shares, down $183.69, on only 2-of-7 strategies long. It's been trimmed repeatedly but not exited. Low correlation is the stated reason to keep it — but that's a diversification argument holding up a losing position. Worth questioning. - **XLE is the star and the bot knows it** — repeatedly flagged as the only profitable, negatively-correlated holding. Good instinct. But it also got force-closed by time stops in the conservative sleeve, which the bot noted it disagreed with. Time stops can flatten winners. - **Signal drought.** Zero-conviction across nearly all instruments means the system is essentially flying on autopilot. This is fine short-term but tells us little about the strategies' quality until direction returns. - **FX