Jarvis

# Weekly Flight Log — Paper Allocation Bot **Period:** 24 Aug – 31 Aug 2026 (7 days) · **Runs:** 27 total, 8 produced decisions > Reminder: this is paper trading. No real money is at risk. FX note: the single capital flow this week was a **1,000,000 HKD** paper deposit; all position values shown are in USD via an approximate paper conversion — treat the HKD/USD boundary as illustrative, not precise. --- ## Posture & performance (per sleeve, vs its mandate) Think of the two sleeves like two crew members with different job descriptions. **Conservative sleeve** — *job: protect capital, only act with corroboration.* - Realised (closed) track record this period: **+$212.68 net** over 41 closed trades, 18 wins (~44% win rate). Net positive despite fewer than half winning — meaning the winners were bigger than the losers. That's the right shape for a capital-preservation book. - Open positions are a broad, diversified spread (10 names). Current unrealised P&L is **mildly negative in aggregate** — small losses on EFA (−$49), GLD (−$60), TLT (−$42), GOP (−$22), IWM (−$33), offset by gains in XLE (+$133), NANC (+$30), DIA (+$15). - **Verdict:** behaving exactly to mandate. Diversified, no single position dominating the loss column, patient. **Aggressive sleeve** — *job: seek returns, tighter cap, may self-initiate.* - Realised track record: **−$106.70 net** over 53 closed trades, 17 wins (~32% win rate). This sleeve is underwater on closed trades and trading more actively. - Open book concentrated in **EEM ($11.1k)** and **QQQ ($10.7k)** — its two biggest bets. EEM is a small winner (+$73); the real drag is **GLD (−$198)**, a losing position the system has repeatedly flagged to trim. - **Verdict:** to mandate in *style* (more active, higher-vol names like EEM tolerated), but the results are lagging the conservative sleeve. Nothing alarming at this scale, but worth watching. --- ## What was decided, and why Across both sleeves the dominant action was **HOLD** (79 conservative, 52 aggressive). That is the correct default — most of the time there was no fresh edge, so the system sat still. Good discipline; a bot that trades constantly is usually a bot bleeding costs. Where it *did* act, the logic clustered around a few clear themes: - **GLD (gold):** the running narrative of the week. It had strong 20-day momentum (+11–16% at various snapshots) and dual BUY signals early — so both sleeves *added*. Later the signal **flipped to none** and the aggressive position moved into a real unrealised loss (−$198), so the system pivoted to **trimming** it. This is a signal doing its job: add on confirmation, reduce when confirmation vanishes. - **QQQ (tech):** whipsawed. Aggressive sleeve **CLOSED** it on a full-conviction SELL flip, then later **ADDED/OPENED** when the signal flipped back to BUY. Honest read: this is the system reacting to a genuinely choppy signal, not conviction of its own. - **EEM (emerging markets):** consistent BUY signals + strong returns → repeatedly **added** in aggressive, **opened modestly** in conservative (with explicit caution that its ~32% volatility is high for a capital-protection book). - **XLE (energy):** favoured in both sleeves for its **negative correlation** to the rest of the book — i.e. it tends to zig when the others zag, which is genuine diversification, not just another equity bet. - **Trims on ambiguity:** GOP and NANC were trimmed when signals went null/conflicting. The conservative sleeve also trimmed SPY/VOO/IWM to reduce "redundant equity beta" — sensible, since SPY and VOO are near-identical exposures. --- ## Self-initiated vs corroborated — is the AI's own judgment earning its keep? **This is the section you're evaluating, so I'll be blunt: this week there is nothing to evaluate.** - Conservative self-initiated: **0** - Aggressive self-initiated: **0** **Every single actionable decision** — all the adds, opens, trims, closes — was backed by a strategy signal (breakout, vol_regime, sma_crossover, MACD, momentum). The AI did **not** once act on its own hunch with no signal behind it. What does that tell us? The AI is currently operating as a **disciplined executor** of the underlying strategy signals, not as an independent forecaster. That's a *conservative, trustworthy* posture — but it also means you haven't yet seen the thing you're actually trying to measure: whether the AI's *own* judgment adds value. The aggressive sleeve is *permitted* to self-initiate and chose not to, even in a whippy week. Reasonable — but it leaves the key question unanswered. --- ## What I'm watching / uncertain about - **Aggressive GLD (−$198):** the largest single unrealised loss in either book, on a name with no current signal. The system has flagged it for trimming multiple times. I want to see that actually reduce, not linger. - **The Q