policy(house-policy): v2.0.0 proposal — thesis-book sleeve + sizing disambiguation (merge = sign-off)

data/registry.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "schema_version": 2,
   "plugin_version": "1.0.0",
-  "last_scan": "2026-08-12T01:20:41Z",
+  "last_scan": "2026-08-13T04:04:44Z",
   "skills": {
     "bacchus": {
       "name": "bacchus",
@@ -6548,10 +6548,10 @@
       "health_status": "healthy",
       "last_checked": "2026-03-26T00:00:00Z",
       "status": "active",
-      "auto_score": 86,
+      "auto_score": 83,
       "manual_rating": null,
       "manual_notes": null,
-      "composite_score": 86,
+      "composite_score": 83,
       "depends_on": [
         "classical-games",
         "cultures-societies",
@@ -27947,17 +27947,17 @@
       "invocation": "both",
       "version": "1.0.0",
       "metrics": {
-        "word_count": 1503,
-        "body_words": 1421,
+        "word_count": 2289,
+        "body_words": 2207,
         "description_words": 60,
         "section_count": 11,
         "reference_files": 0,
         "example_files": 0,
         "script_files": 0,
         "template_files": 0,
         "estimated_tokens_metadata": 78,
-        "estimated_tokens_body": 2315,
-        "estimated_tokens_total": 2393
+        "estimated_tokens_body": 3600,
+        "estimated_tokens_total": 3678
       },
       "health_status": "healthy",
       "issues": [],

skills/investing/house-policy/SKILL.md

@@ -8,14 +8,14 @@ description: >
   the answer is "unstated", never an improvised default.
 metadata:
   author: nirav
-  version: "1.1.1"
-  policy_version: "investing-house-policy/1.1"
+  version: "2.0.0"
+  policy_version: "investing-house-policy/2.0"
   authored: 2026-07-27
 compatibility: Designed for Claude Code
 allowed-tools: Read
 ---
 
-# House Policy — Investing v1.1
+# House Policy — Investing v2.0
 
 Committed parameters for the paper book. Every line is either **[policy]** — a binding
 requirement for compliant paper-book behavior — or **[agent]** — guidance honored by judgment.
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ described as policy-compliant merely because this skill was loaded.
 ## 1. Scope
 
 - Governs the **Archon $1M paper book only**. Real accounts are outside this document's
-  binding scope as of v1.1. **[agent]**
+  binding scope as of v2.0. **[agent]**
 - Claude Code is **analyst-only**; live placement never originates here, in any mode. **[policy]**
 - Factor targets (§5) describe intended allocation policy; enforcement applies to the paper
   book. Real-account adherence is by intention, not gate. **[agent]**
@@ -43,14 +43,18 @@ described as policy-compliant merely because this skill was loaded.
 
 Archon never overrides Risk Architecture to chase returns. **[agent]**
 
+Thesis-book entries (§3) are decided by **Nirav alone**: Archon and strategists may analyze
+or draft the thesis note, but the entry intent is authored and signed by Nirav — no other
+actor may originate it. **[policy]**
+
 ## 3. Position-cap hierarchy
 
 Two layers bind simultaneously; the **tighter always wins**. A downstream layer may be
 stricter than this policy, never looser. **[policy]**
 
 ```
 effective_cap = min( book_max_position_pct ,
-                     sleeve_share × strategist_max_position_pct )
+                     sleeve_share × per_position_max_pct )
 ```
 
 - `book_max_position_pct` = **15%** of total book **[policy]**
@@ -62,35 +66,83 @@ effective_cap = min( book_max_position_pct ,
 
 ### Sleeve allocation
 
-| Sleeve | Class | Share | Strategist max | Effective cap |
+| Sleeve | Class | Share | Per-position max | Effective cap |
 |---|---|---:|---:|---:|
-| dca-investor | **core** | 55% | 50% | **15.0%** (book cap binds) |
-| rebalancer | **core** | 30% | 70% | **15.0%** (book cap binds) |
+| dca-investor | **core** | 45% | 50% | **15.0%** (book cap binds) |
+| rebalancer | **core** | 25% | 70% | **15.0%** (book cap binds) |
+| thesis-book | **thesis** | 15% | 33⅓% | **5.0%** |
 | swing-trader | **tactical** | 5% | 25% | **1.25%** |
 | macro-overlay-trader | **tactical** | 5% | 70% | **3.5%** |
 | options-strategist | **tactical** | 5% | 25% | **1.25%** |
 | day-trader · earnings-event-trader · reflexivity-trader | — | **0%** | — | **0** (kill-listed) |
 
 **Core** sleeves run systematic processes — scheduled contribution and drift correction back to
-committed targets. **Tactical** sleeves open discretionary positions on a view. The distinction
-is load-bearing in §6.
+committed targets. **Tactical** sleeves open short-horizon discretionary positions on a view.
+**Thesis** sleeves hold long-horizon conviction positions against a written thesis note (below).
+The class distinction is load-bearing in §6. A discretionary-on-a-view entry may never route
+through a core sleeve to obtain size; if no non-core sleeve can host it at workable size, the
+answer is "no position", not reclassification. **[policy]**
 
 Kill-listed strategists have sleeve 0 and `do_not_promote: true`; both conditions are
 AND-gated at the executor. **[policy]**
 
+### Thesis-book sleeve
+
+The thesis-book sleeve exists because conviction positions are neither systematic (core) nor
+short-horizon (tactical). It is funded by reducing core shares (dca-investor 55→45%,
+rebalancer 30→25%); total sleeve shares still sum to 100%.
+
+- **Max 3 concurrent thesis positions** (they also count toward the book's
+  `max_concurrent_positions` = 8). **[policy]**
+- Every entry requires a **written thesis note filed before the intent**, containing: the
+  market-implied expectation being disputed, at least one **pre-registered falsifier** that
+  would force exit, a catalyst or review window, and a review date. No note → no entry. **[policy]**
+- A fired falsifier forces exit or an explicit written amendment of the thesis — silence is
+  not an option. **[policy]**
+- Stop-loss default in §3 does not apply; the falsifier **is** the thesis position's
+  invalidation level, and it must be stated in the note. **[policy]**
+- No strategist runs this sleeve; entries are Nirav-signed (§2). **[policy]**
+
 ## 4. Sizing basis
 
 Conviction tiers persist, but **size is gated on edge, not confidence**. **[agent]**
 
+Tier size is a **fraction of the §3 effective cap for the sleeve the position lives in** —
+never a fraction of the book directly, and never a fraction of a fraction. This supersedes the
+v1.1 table, which read two ways an order of magnitude apart ("7.5%" of book vs. of
+sleeve-adjusted cap); neither ambiguous reading survives. **[policy]**
+
 | Tier | Size | Requires |
 |---|---:|---|
-| HIGH | 15% of sleeve-adjusted cap | stated probability **vs. a named reference** + payoff asymmetry |
-| MEDIUM | 7.5% | same, weaker edge |
+| HIGH | 100% of the sleeve's effective cap | stated probability **vs. a named reference** + payoff asymmetry |
+| MEDIUM | 50% of the sleeve's effective cap | reference requirement per sleeve-class scope below |
 | LOW | 0% | monitor only |
 
-**No stated edge versus a reference → no size.** Confidence alone never establishes
-attractiveness: a 90% event can be fully priced, a 35% event can be attractive. Recommendations
-that cannot name their reference probability are LOW by definition.
+**Worked example.** A MEDIUM swing-trader position: effective cap 1.25% of book (§3), so size
+= 50% × 1.25% = **0.625% of book**. A MEDIUM thesis-book position: effective cap 5.0%, so size
+= **2.5% of book**. A HIGH dca-investor allocation may use the full 15% book cap. The tier
+never overrides the cap hierarchy — §3's tighter-wins rule already bound before the tier
+applied.
+
+### Reference-probability rule — scope
+
+**No stated edge versus a reference → no size** applies to **tactical sleeves as written**:
+a tactical recommendation that cannot name its reference probability is LOW by definition.
+Confidence alone never establishes attractiveness: a 90% event can be fully priced, a 35%
+event can be attractive. **[policy]**
+
+The rule's intent is to force the question "what does the market already believe?" — not to
+zero every honest long-horizon view. Scope by sleeve class:
+
+- **Core** — not applicable; systematic entries carry no per-position view.
+- **Tactical** — applies in full. HIGH and MEDIUM both require a named reference probability;
+  the tiers differ by strength of edge.
+- **Thesis** — HIGH requires a named reference probability plus payoff asymmetry, same as
+  tactical. **MEDIUM is available without a point probability** when the §3 thesis note is
+  complete: it must still name the market-implied expectation it disputes (a qualitative
+  reference), a pre-registered falsifier, and a review date. An incomplete note is LOW. Honest
+  "I cannot name a point probability" therefore caps a thesis position at MEDIUM (2.5% of
+  book); it no longer zeroes it. **[policy]**
 
 ## 5. Factor targets and rebalancing
 
@@ -137,17 +189,20 @@ Measured peak-to-trough on book equity. **[policy]**
 | State | Threshold | Behavior |
 |---|---|---|
 | Normal | ≥ −10% | unrestricted |
-| **Restricted** | < −10% | no new **tactical** positions (§3 class column: swing-trader, macro-overlay-trader, options-strategist); **core sleeves continue** — scheduled contribution and drift correction are not new risk-taking; **policy may not be loosened** |
+| **Restricted** | < −10% | no new **tactical or thesis** positions and no adds to existing ones (§3 class column: thesis-book, swing-trader, macro-overlay-trader, options-strategist); **core sleeves continue** — scheduled contribution and drift correction are not new risk-taking; **policy may not be loosened**. Thesis exits on a fired falsifier remain mandatory — the gate blocks entries, never exits |
 | **Halt** | < −20% | no new positions of any kind; written review required to exit |
 
 ## 7. Negative constraints
 
-Not authorized under v1.1, regardless of apparent opportunity: **[policy]**
+Not authorized under v2.0, regardless of apparent opportunity: **[policy]**
 
 - live placement from Claude Code, in any mode
 - options intents outside an `options-trader` profile (which does not exist)
 - any position from a kill-listed strategist
-- any intent the executor did not receive from a strategist
+- any intent the executor did not receive from a strategist — except thesis-book intents,
+  which it accepts **only** when Nirav-signed per §2
+- any thesis-book entry without a filed thesis note, or any discretionary entry routed
+  through a core sleeve
 
 ## 8. Amendment procedure
 
@@ -182,6 +237,7 @@ evidence that the policy parameter should be loosened.
 | 2026-07-27 | 1.0.1 | Defined **core** vs **tactical** sleeve classes in §3; §6 Restricted now names which sleeves halt and states that core sleeves continue | clarifying (PATCH) | "tactical" appeared once in §6 and was never defined — a reader could have frozen routine rebalancing during a drawdown, which the gate never intended. Same-day pre-merge correction; treated as completing authorship, not an amendment |
 | 2026-07-27 | 1.1.0 | §3 adds `max_gross_exposure` 100%, no leverage. §5 rewritten: tilt envelope is **±10 percentage points** (the "double/halve" language removed as a mis-description of the source's own examples), tilts must fund each other, active target defined, rebalance trigger clipped by the envelope | tightening + clarifying (MINOR) | Three defects found in a self-audit: caps alone permitted 120% gross; the tilt rule carried three incompatible bounds at once; "intended exposure" was undefined under an active tilt. The envelope-clips-band rule resolves an interaction the two fixes would otherwise have created (a tilted band reaching 43.75% past a 35% ceiling) |
 | 2026-07-28 | 1.1.1 | Replaced the misleading `[executor]` label with `[policy]`, documented the current enforcement gap, aligned visible version text, and removed the unavailable predictions-factory dependency | clarifying (PATCH) | Registry dependency edges and LLM instructions are not deterministic enforcement. The policy must distinguish committed requirements from implemented controls. |
+| 2026-08-10 | 2.0.0 | **PROPOSED — pending Nirav sign-off (merge = sign-off).** §3 adds a **thesis** sleeve class and `thesis-book` sleeve (15% share funded from core: dca 55→45%, rebalancer 30→25%; per-position ⅓ of sleeve → 5.0% effective cap; max 3 concurrent; thesis-note + falsifier required). §4 rewritten: tier = fraction of the sleeve's effective cap (HIGH 100%, MEDIUM 50%), one worked example, and the reference-probability rule scoped by sleeve class — tactical unchanged, thesis MEDIUM available on a complete note without a point probability. §6 Restricted now also blocks new thesis entries. §7 extended | loosening + clarifying (MAJOR) | Orchestration rep 4 (vault `skill-lab/`, 2026-08-11 record): three independent draft overlays all routed through core sleeves because the tactical path sized a committed view to ~0.09% of book — economically meaningless — and the structural gate correctly rejected every one. The policy could not host the position class it was written to govern. This is a structural gap, not "a compelling single idea exceeding a cap": no specific position motivates the numbers. **Cooling-off: the loosening component (new sleeve) takes effect 7 days after sign-off; sign-off itself requires the book not in §6 Restricted/Halt and no stop-out within 30 days. The §4/§6 clarifications and tightenings are effective at sign-off.** |
 
 ## Connections