Jarvis

# Weekly Flight Log — Allocation Bot **Period:** 22 Jun – 29 Jun 2026 (7 days) **Mode:** Paper trading. No real money at stake. FX values are paper approximations. --- ## Posture & performance (per sleeve, vs its mandate) Think of this week as light-traffic flying: lots of scanning, very few control inputs. Out of **10 runs, only 4 produced a decision** — the rest the system looked, found no edge, and held. That restraint is the headline. **Conservative sleeve** (steady, capital protection, wants corroboration before acting): - 48 decisions total: **46 HOLD, 2 OPEN**. - Opened small positions in **IWM** (small-cap ETF) and **TLT** (long-term Treasury bonds), both at low conviction (0.45 and 0.40). - Verdict vs mandate: **on profile.** It refused to enter anything without clear evidence, and even its two buys were deliberately small. The recurring complaint in the notes — *"missing correlation data"* — is the system being honest that it can't fully see how positions move together, so it sized down. That's the right instinct. **Aggressive sleeve** (opportunistic, may act on its own evidence under a tighter cap): - 48 decisions: **46 HOLD, 1 OPEN, 1 TRIM**. - Opened **IWM** on a genuine breakout signal (conviction 0.75). - Trimmed **GLD** (gold), which is in a sharp drawdown. - Closed P&L this week: **1 trade, +$1.01, a win.** Tiny, but green. - Open positions: **GLD** (+$3.45 unrealised) and **XLE** energy ETF (+$0.31 unrealised). - Verdict vs mandate: **on profile, and notably disciplined** — see the next section. --- ## What was decided, and why Four real moves this week: | Sleeve | Symbol | Action | Conviction | Why (plain English) | |--------|--------|--------|-----------|---------------------| | Conservative | IWM | OPEN | 0.45 | The *only* instrument with an active BUY signal (a breakout), plus a positive recent trend (+2.7% over 20 days). Sized small because volatility is elevated and correlation data was missing. | | Conservative | TLT | OPEN | 0.40 | Bonds — low volatility (8.7%), gently trending up. Fits "capital protection." But **no strategy signal backed this** — the AI's own call. | | Aggressive | IWM | OPEN | 0.75 | Same breakout signal as above, but the aggressive sleeve leaned in harder. Bonus: IWM barely correlates with what's already in the book (0.08), so it adds genuine diversification. | | Aggressive | GLD | TRIM | 0.50 | Gold is down **-9.5%** over 20 days with no signal supporting it. The AI cut the position to reduce risk but kept a slice, since it's still showing a small gain. Sensible — don't panic-dump a position still in the black. | What it pointedly **did not** do: it left **XLE** (energy, down -5.5%) alone, choosing to wait for a reversal signal rather than guess. It also passed on DIA and GOP repeatedly despite mild uptrends, because there was no signal to confirm. Holding when there's no edge is a decision, and a good one. --- ## 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 evidence with no strategy signal behind it*. - **Conservative: 1 self-initiated move** — the **TLT** open. The AI bought bonds purely on its own read (low vol, positive trend, fits the mandate), with no signal backing. Conviction was kept deliberately low (0.40) precisely because of that. This is the textbook way to self-initiate: act, but size down to reflect the weaker evidence. - **Aggressive: 0 self-initiated moves.** Interesting — the *aggressive* sleeve, which is *allowed* to free-lance more, didn't. Both its actions (IWM open, GLD trim) were tied to signals or to managing an existing position. So this week the aggressive sleeve was actually more conservative about going off-script than the conservative one. **Is it earning its keep?** Too early to say from one trade. The single self-initiated bet (TLT) is too new to judge, and the closed P&L (+$1.01) came from a signal-backed trade, not a self-initiated one. What I *can* say: the AI is self-initiating **rarely and humbly** — exactly the behaviour you'd want before trusting it with more rope. No evidence yet of it talking itself into bad trades. --- ## What I'm watching / uncertain about - **The "missing correlation data" theme.** It appears all over the conservative notes. This is the system admitting it can't fully see portfolio risk, and it's sizing down because of it. I want to understand *why* that data is missing — is it a feed gap, or just thin history? It's currently the biggest limiter on conviction. - **GLD's -9.5% slide.** We trimmed but still hold a sliver. If it keeps falling, the small unrealised gain disappears and the next decision gets harder. - **XLE.** Down -5.5%,