Jarvis

# Weekly Flight Log — Allocation Bot **Period:** 21 Sep – 28 Sep 2026 (7 days) · Paper trading only *Note on money: the account was funded with a 1,000,000 HKD paper deposit. All figures below are in USD using a paper-approximation FX rate — treat the dollar values as directional, not exact.* --- ## Posture & performance (per sleeve, vs its mandate) Think of this week like a routine sector flown in stable air. The bot ran **27 times** and actually made a decision (rather than just observing) on **14** of those. The rest were "look, assess, hold" — which is exactly what we want when there's no edge. **Conservative sleeve** (mandate: steady, protect capital, only act when multiple strategies agree): - Actions: **153 HOLDs**, **14 OPENs**, **1 TRIM**. Overwhelmingly a holding posture. - Closed trades this week: **5 trades, 3 winners, net −$56.07**. A small loss — essentially flat, which is on-mandate for a capital-preservation sleeve. - Positions were opened in broad, low-volatility names (SPY, VOO, NANC, QQQ, plus a TLT bond position for diversification). This is textbook conservative behaviour. **Aggressive sleeve** (mandate: opportunistic, may act on its own evidence, tighter position cap): - Actions: **141 HOLDs, 10 ADDs, 10 TRIMs, 5 OPENs, 2 CLOSEs**. Far more active — as intended. - Closed trades: **21 trades, 8 winners, net −$192.87**. A losing week on realised P&L, and a win rate below half. - **Open positions** currently show a *net unrealised gain* driven mainly by QQQ (+$476) and NANC (+$103), offset by a persistent loser: **TLT bonds at −$176**. **Plain-English verdict:** Both sleeves lost a little on closed trades. The conservative sleeve behaved exactly as it should. The aggressive sleeve's biggest recurring problem this week was a single bad position — long-term Treasury bonds (TLT) — which it kept trimming rather than decisively exiting. --- ## What was decided, and why The dominant theme: **U.S. equities were quietly trending up, bonds were trending down, and the strategy layer had low conviction across the board.** The bot responded sensibly. - **Bought broad equities** (SPY, VOO, QQQ, NANC, EEM) where 4–5 of 7 strategies were aligned long and 20-day trends were positive (+3% to +4.5%). Position sizes were deliberately small because the *consensus conviction* scores were near zero — the strategies were "long but lukewarm." - **Cut the bond loser.** TLT was down ~4–5% over 20 days in both sleeves. The aggressive sleeve trimmed it repeatedly; the conservative sleeve trimmed once but also *re-opened* a small TLT slice for diversification (low correlation to stocks is the argument). - **Exited energy (XLE)** in the aggressive sleeve — closed at full conviction (1.0) on a sell signal after several rounds of trimming a losing, downtrending position. This was clean, disciplined loss-cutting. - **Avoided the weak stuff.** IWM (small caps, −6%), GLD (gold, −7%), DIA, EFA were repeatedly held/passed because they were trending down with thin support. The bot correctly refused to "buy the dip" without a catalyst. --- ## Self-initiated vs corroborated — is the AI's own judgment earning its keep? This is the part you're really evaluating: when the AI acts on its *own* read with **no strategy signal backing it** (self-initiated) vs when it's confirming an existing signal (corroborated). - **Conservative sleeve:** 5 self-initiated actions out of 14 total actionable. - **Aggressive sleeve:** only 2 self-initiated out of its actionable set. **What the self-initiated calls actually were:** almost all were **"re-underwriting"** — the AI re-examining a position it already held (GOP, SPY, TLT, NANC, VOO, QQQ) and choosing to keep it, "resetting the clock with a fresh basis." In other words, these were *maintenance* decisions, not bold new bets into nothing. **My honest read:** The AI's own judgment this week was **conservative and defensible, not adventurous.** It didn't invent a wild position out of thin air. Its self-initiated conservative opens (SPY, TLT, NANC, VOO) all leaned on "5 of 7 strategies are long, just at zero conviction" — so there *was* directional agreement, just no strong signal to formally corroborate. That's a reasonable gap to fill. **The one to watch:** the self-initiated conservative **TLT open** (3/7 strategies, mean-reversion bet despite a −4.6% drawdown). That's the AI leaning against a downtrend on a hunch. It's small, but it's the closest thing to genuine independent risk-taking, and TLT has been the book's worst holding. I'd call that call *unproven*. --- ## What I'm watching / uncertain about - **TLT (bonds) is the sore thumb.** Both sleeves keep it despite pers