Jarvis

# Weekly Flight Log **Period:** 14 Sep – 21 Sep 2026 (7 days) · Paper trading only > Quick orientation, Captain: think of this week as flying through smooth-but-featureless cloud. No storms, but also no clear horizon to steer by. The bot mostly held station, tidied up a few positions the rulebook forced it to close, and made a small number of its own judgement calls. Nothing here is live money. The single capital flow shown is a HKD 1,000,000 paper deposit; all P&L figures below are in USD and the FX is a rough paper approximation. --- ## Posture & performance (per sleeve, vs its mandate) **Conservative sleeve** — *mandate: steady, capital protection, corroboration required.* - Currently holds **two positions**: GOP (−$59.83) and TLT (+$76.44). Net of the two, roughly flat. - Realised results this week: **5 closes, net −$118.76, 2 winners.** Small losses, no blow-ups. - Behaviour was textbook-conservative: it deployed **no new capital into anything speculative**, closed positions only when *forced* by the risk rulebook, and repeatedly declined "tempting" candidates because conviction was zero. That is exactly what this sleeve is supposed to do in a low-signal week. **Aggressive sleeve** — *mandate: opportunistic, may self-initiate under a tighter cap.* - Holds **seven positions**. Book P&L is modestly negative overall: winners QQQ (+$119) and EEM (+$27.72); losers EFA (−$143.52), TLT (−$139.23), XLE (−$100), SPY (−$88.44), GOP (−$30.69). - Realised results: **12 closes, net −$223.87, 5 winners.** More activity, more churn, slightly larger drawdown — consistent with a sleeve that trades more. - It stayed near fully deployed (cash was described as "essentially exhausted" in several decisions), which is on-mandate for an opportunistic sleeve, but note the trade-off: it had little dry powder to seize anything fresh. **Bottom line:** both sleeves lost a little money in realised terms, but small and controlled. Neither did anything reckless. This was a *preservation* week, not a *profit* week. --- ## What was decided, and why Out of **28 runs, 19 produced decisions.** The dominant action by far was **HOLD** (219 conservative, 205 aggressive) — the bot spent most of its energy deciding *not* to act. The teaching point of the week: **strategy consensus conviction was zero across both sleeves.** In plain terms, the seven underlying strategies were mostly still nominally "long" positions but none of them were pounding the table. "4 of 7 strategies long, but all at zero conviction" appears again and again. The bot correctly read that as *no edge* and mostly sat on its hands. The real actions fell into three buckets: 1. **Forced exits (the rulebook, not judgement).** A **time stop** — a rule that closes a position once it's been held too long without a fresh reason to keep it — fired repeatedly. This drove almost every CLOSE: SPY, DIA, XLE (conservative); IWM, DIA, XLE, VOO, EEM, GLD (aggressive). These are the risk envelope doing its job. The bot mostly just *agreed* with a mandatory exit rather than originating it. 2. **Risk-reduction trims/closes on deteriorating names.** EEM was trimmed then fully closed in the aggressive sleeve when two strategies (breakout, MACD) fired high-conviction SELLs. GOP was trimmed in both sleeves on a momentum SELL flip. GLD was added to on an RSI-reversion BUY. These are corroborated by real signals — good discipline. 3. **A handful of genuine judgement calls** (see next section). --- ## Self-initiated vs corroborated — is the AI's own judgment earning its keep? This is the section you care most about, Captain, so here's the honest read. - **Conservative sleeve: 1 self-initiated action.** A TLT re-underwrite (conviction 0.45) — essentially the bot choosing to *keep* an existing bond hedge past its time stop because 3 strategies were still long, volatility was low (9.5%), and correlation to the book was low (0.24). This is a *defensive* self-initiation: it's not chasing gains, it's maintaining a hedge. Reasonable and on-mandate. - **Aggressive sleeve: 4 self-initiated actions** — all **re-underwrites of positions past their time stop**: XLE (0.4), SPY (0.35), TLT (0.35), EFA (0.35). In every case the bot's own reasoning was "the time stop wants me out, but N strategies are still long, so I'll re-open/maintain." **My assessment:** none of the self-initiated calls were the AI *inventing* a brand-new position out of thin air. Every one was a decision to **override a mechanical exit and keep an existing position** because it saw residual strategy support. That's a meaningful and appropriate use of judgement — but it's a *lower-risk* flavour of autonomy than opening something nobody flagged. The uncomfortable part: several of these re-underwritten names are currently underwater — EFA (−$143), TLT (−$139), XLE