Skip to content

docs(experiments): every flat-priced record points at the cost correction - #690

Merged
eaitbrahim merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs-flat-slippage-pointers
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

docs(experiments): every flat-priced record points at the cost correction#690
eaitbrahim merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs-flat-slippage-pointers

Conversation

@eaitbrahim

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Recommended by #335's own restatement, not done at the time.

Sixteen records report profit factors priced at the flat 5bp slippage floor. One document — the restatement itself — knows that no asset in keel's universe reaches that floor (1.1× to 36.8×, median ~10×).

Why a pointer and not a re-run

The correction is conservative-only: real cost is higher, so a corrected profit factor can only fall, and every one of the 120 measured deltas was negative or zero. Re-running thirteen documents to move numbers that were already null spends real compute to reach the same conclusion.

What changes isn't any document's verdict — it's what a reader may conclude by comparing across documents. A 0.9 in one and a 1.06 in another aren't on the same scale when both were priced at a rate neither asset trades at, and nothing on the page said so.

Nothing is rewritten

docs/experiments is an append-only account of what was run; editing a measured number would falsify it. Every change here is an addition — git diff origin/main -- docs/experiments/ contains no removed line that isn't part of a note being reflowed.

The index needed its own note, because the blanket one was false there

Applied uniformly, the note told docs/experiments/README.md that "the figures below are priced at the flat floor" — and the index has no figures. It now says what's true of it: that every record dated before 2026-09-01 is flat-priced.

A note that misdescribes the page it sits on is worse than no note. I caught this by reading the rendered output rather than trusting that a uniform edit was uniformly correct.

Test first

The third assertion is the one worth having: a bare link would read as a retraction, which is a worse error than the one being corrected. The pin requires the word "verdict" within 600 characters of the link, and a mutation replacing the qualification with "These numbers are wrong." fails it.

Tests: tests/test_experiment_cost_pointers.py — 3 tests.
3 mutants, 3 killed: a record losing its pointer; a pointer that reads as a retraction; and the discovery regex matching nothing — that last one because every assertion here passes vacuously if the scan finds no records.

Full suite 5258 passed / 3 skipped; ruff clean.

…tion

Recommended by #335's own restatement and not done at the time. Sixteen records
report profit factors priced at the flat 5bp slippage floor; one document -- the
restatement itself -- knows that no asset in keel's universe reaches that floor.

WHY A POINTER AND NOT A RE-RUN. The correction is conservative-only: real cost is
higher, so a corrected profit factor can only fall, and every one of the 120
measured deltas was negative or zero. Re-running thirteen documents to move
numbers that were already null spends real compute to reach the same conclusion.
What changes is not any document's VERDICT but what a reader may conclude by
comparing ACROSS documents -- a 0.9 in one and a 1.06 in another are not on the
same scale when both were priced at a rate neither asset trades at, and nothing
on the page says so.

NOTHING IS REWRITTEN. `docs/experiments` is an append-only account of what was
run; editing a measured number would falsify it. Every change here is an
addition, and `git diff` against main contains no removed line that is not part
of a note being reflowed.

THE INDEX GOT ITS OWN NOTE, because the blanket one was FALSE there. Applied
uniformly, the note told `docs/experiments/README.md` that "the figures below are
priced at the flat floor" -- and the index has no figures. It now says what is
true of it: that every record dated before 2026-09-01 is flat-priced. A note that
misdescribes the page it sits on is worse than no note.

TEST FIRST, and the third assertion is the one worth having. A bare link would
read as "this result is retracted", which would be a worse error than the one
being corrected -- so the pin requires the word "verdict" within 600 characters
of the link, and a mutation replacing the qualification with "These numbers are
wrong." fails it.

Tests: `tests/test_experiment_cost_pointers.py` (3 tests). 3 mutants, 3 killed: a
record losing its pointer, a pointer that reads as a retraction, and a discovery
regex matching nothing -- the last because every assertion here passes vacuously
if the scan finds no records.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NzuKAe2RVrPt9acVAWjRyL
@eaitbrahim eaitbrahim self-assigned this Sep 2, 2026
@eaitbrahim
eaitbrahim merged commit 1ffad3d into main Sep 2, 2026
4 checks passed
@eaitbrahim
eaitbrahim deleted the docs-flat-slippage-pointers branch September 2, 2026 11:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant