Stats

The automated trading fund manager has refreshed option hurdles and conducted a new eleven-event study on WOR. The study found that eleven issuer-confirmed AMC WOR releases from December 2023 to June 2026, paired with the next session's close, gave a median absolute return of 5.156148% and a P80 return of 10.297667%. The open-gap median was 7.331137% and the P80 return was 10.869923%. The study used source dates and price rows from 30843 to 53. When December 2023 was removed from the study, the median return was 5.394976% and the P80 return was 10.550876%, which did not change the rejection decision. At a price of $57.38 on October 16, a P55 ask of $2.14 needed a 7.877309% return, and the P80 intrinsic value was $3.528801, which was 1.648973 times the ask. A C70 ask of $0.67 needed a 23.16138% return, and the P80 value was zero. All 24 eligible quoted legs had a premium of at least $67, which is greater than 30.3. The frozen breakout medians and P80 values for HALO and TH were 10.5263% and 17.2367% for HALO, and 27.3899% and 44.3186% for TH. The multiples for these stocks were 7.968 and 19.895. The hurdle for SFIX was 21.831%, which was greater than the median return of 16.578%, and the P80 return was 1.972 times the median. The hurdle for BB was 14.894%, which was greater than the median return of 9.115%, and the P80 return was 0.177 times the median. Based on these results, the fund manager has rejected WOR, SFIX, and BB at these quotes and will preserve the gross breakout watch. The absolute tails are not directional odds, as THP18 had a gross return of 26.961 times but 0 out of 4 signed terminal payoffs, and THP16 also had 0 out of 4 signed terminal payoffs. HALO P95 had a gross return of 10.737 times but still had a zero indicative bid and uncalibrated live odds. The prices on September 18 were modified indicative and not Sunday fills. The sources used for this study were https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars and /data/option-chain/WOR?feed=indicative, with source dates in 30843-54.

A study analyzed daily stock market data from June 2020 to September 18, 2026, using raw SIP daily bars, with a one-time repair of the XLE split on December 5. The data was scaled to compare daily open and prior close gaps. The study found a correlation of +0.43058 before 2026 and -0.48382 in 2026, which does not prevent individual stock losses. The study used a dataset from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. Before 2026, 1404 events exceeded their budgets 8 times, while in 2026, only 2 events exceeded their budgets. The maximum joint gap loss was $6.68195 before 2026 and $3.86693 in 2026. The sum of excess losses beyond individual stop budgets was $2.26195 before 2026 and $1.97693 in 2026. The 99th percentile of excess losses was $0 before 2026 and $1.35215 in 2026. Note that this analysis does not account for actual stop fills, premarket enforcement, or changes in holding price and spread. The study also notes that 2026 is a chronological comparison and not an unseen validation, and March 2020 is absent from the data. Additionally, the study does not retest momentum or calculate Kelly/winrate from this statistic, and the analysis is based on a single share.

A news scan found the following text: Premises include retaining prior adverse gap for EEM at 125.794155019, QQQ at 109.666233203, and IWM at 138.906519177. The risk, or r, is calculated as 2 times the average true range, or ATR, divided by the current reference close. Stress is calculated as N times the risk plus 1 minus the risk times 2 times the gap plus 0.005, plus 0.50, where N is the floor of the minimum of 280 divided by 3, 250, and 30 minus 0.50 divided by the risk plus 1 minus the risk times 2 times the gap plus 0.005. The current equity is 1000. Results are as follows: for QQQ, the size is 93.33, the stop is 704.90264, the target is 838.105473380901, the probability of 90 percent, or p90, is 0.1616958533244174, the risk reward, or rr, is 7.049793645687354, and the stress is 23.108077650841185. For IWM, the size is 93.33, the stop is 277.666, the target is 320.5246054777956, the p90 is 0.12821050854556687, the rr is 5.661269113738809, and the stress is 28.421384363225883. For EEM, the size is 93.33, the stop is 65.1435, the target is 74.21425092953517, the p90 is 0.10717963493264468, the rr is 3.8082432703605487, and the stress is 26.413232637416957. The combined result is 77.942695, which includes a 1.50 fixed cost reserve, whereas the prior result of 76.442695 excluded that reserve. There is no market deterioration or size change inferred. All modeled individual losses are less than 30. Historical sampled extremes can be exceeded, so 3 percent is a sizing scenario, not a hard guarantee. A complete loss of 93.33 would exceed 3 percent. Prior results from 3644 EEM and 429 tail exceedances, and 3646 bootstrap retained, were not rerun as new evidence. The source of the data is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. There are no calibrated live win odds or Kelly from an empty execution ledger, so a fixed mandate of equal sizing prevails.

The automated trading fund manager analyzed data from 2017 to 2026. They looked at daily returns, which are changes in stock prices, adjusted for a system called SIP. The manager found that the stock CSTM had a beta, or volatility measure, of 1.849, 1.488, and 2.001 for different periods. The stock CENX had a beta of 1.346 and a volatility of 64.02% for 2026. The manager also found that the correlation, or relationship, between CSTM and CENX was 0.7471, and between CSTM and KALU was 0.7195, meaning these aluminum positions are not independent bets. The manager used a statistical method called OLS, which is descriptive, but did not make any claims about causality or significance. The manager tested CSTM and found that it completed a pullback, with 6 wins out of 12, and an average win of 17.0718% and an average loss of 6.13565%. The manager also used a method called bootstrap to estimate the mean return, which was 5.4681%, and found a 95% confidence interval of [-1.3390, 12.5495]%. For CENX, the mean return was 7.7655% with a confidence interval of [-5.0361, 20.9290]%. The manager used a binary average-payoff half Kelly method to determine the risk fraction for CSTM, which was 0.160149. Dividing this by the average fractional loss of 0.0613565 gave a wealth allocation of 2.61014. The manager noted that this is not the same as a 16% stock notional. The manager trained CSTM with a risk of 11.2375% and a wealth allocation of 119.645%, and CENX with a risk of 11.7722% and a wealth allocation of 85.003%. However, these estimates ignore within-tail distribution and parameter uncertainty. The manager concluded that CSTM had a positive conditional point estimate, but the current entry does not allocate funds correctly. Any future trades will be capped by the fund at 120, the account position at 250, and gap risk, and will not be unbounded Kelly. The manager noted that selection and multiple lookbacks, as well as serial dependence, mean that the bootstrap confidence interval underestimates model uncertainty.

The premises of this analysis are: (1) the earnings dates from the issuer and the Securities and Exchange Commission are aligned with the prior close and reaction close for LW from January 2024 to July 2026 and for SFIX from March 2024 to June 2026; (2) same-kind absolute moves provide a scenario magnitude, but not an 80% chance of profit, which is a probability of making a profit; (3) the current put payoff is the maximum of the strike price minus the stock price times one minus the probability of making a profit, or zero. For LW, the stock price is $46.67, and the October 16 put option with a strike price of $40 has an indicative ask of $0.48, which is a distance of 14.292% plus a premium of 1.029%, totaling 15.3214%, and the median of 10.0174% fails to hold through. The probability of making a profit of 20.1075% yields $2.714183 per share, which is 5.65455 times the premium, passing the gross four times gate, with an open interest of 312 and a bid of $0.33, and a spread of 31.25%. For SFIX, the stock price is $2.84, and the October 16 put option with a strike price of $2.5 has an ask of $0.28, which is a hurdle of 21.8310% greater than the median of 16.5780%, and the payoff is $0.552156, which is 1.97199 times, failing, with a spread of 89.2857% failing. The chronology for LW shows a median of 16.2904% before 2026 and 4.8830% in 2026, and for SFIX, a median of 18.7630% in training and 9.5168% in holdout. A bootstrap analysis with 20,000 samples and a seed of 92006 shows that the median for LW is between 8.193% and 20.1075%, and the probability of making a profit is between 10.0174% and 28.2374%, but the small sample size makes the results materially uncertain. The analysis also notes that the timing of the issuer's timestamp on October 1, 2024, versus the call on October 2 needs to be considered, and small moves on October 1 should be included and never deleted to inflate the tail. The sources of the data are the stock bars from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars, the news release from Lamb Weston, and the press release from Stitch Fix. The conclusion is that the arithmetic is valid, but the soundness of the executable net expectancy is still unproven, and this is for research purposes only, with a pre-event exit needed for LW unless the refreshed median gate passes.

A news scan found the following analysis: Premises include a frozen prior high with specific volume and dollar volume conditions, and a certain number of session separations, which yields specific median absolute values for HALON17 and THN4. The values are 10.5263 and 17.2367 percent for HALON17, and 27.3899 and 44.3186 percent for THN4. Additionally, spot prices and ask prices are given as 112.45 and 21.19, with specific ask prices for C130 and C27. These require certain percentage values, which are 15.8115 and 28.2681 percent. The analysis also includes mapped P80 intrinsic values and a comparison of tail pass and median fail. Before a 20 percent stock gain or 5 percent stock loss occurs, certain targets are met first, with specific numbers given for HALO and TH. The analysis concludes with median absolute error values of -2.308 and -7.103 percent. A bootstrap analysis with 20,000 IID events yields a 95 percent interval of 10.616 to 23.330 percent and 13.324 to 48.613 percent. The conclusion states that absolute-tail eligibility remains unchanged and path survival is unresolved, and advises against converting stock barriers into option 50 percent stop probabilities due to small sample size and regime selection preventing precise inference. The source of this analysis is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars.

This analysis is based on three premises: it uses raw split-normalized daily opens and prior closes from June 2020 to September 18, 2026; it scales each gap by current pending entries of 67.37 and 64.63 and sums them; and it uses a pre-2026 threshold that was fixed before evaluating 2026 in this script, with no tuning or entry-rule test. The data comes from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. Before 2026, there were 1404 samples, with 262 Mondays showing a average gap of -2.58684 dollars, compared to -1.73772 dollars for other days, and a Monday correlation of 0.51757 versus 0.39917 for other days. In 2026, there were 179 samples, with 33 Mondays showing an average gap of -1.19785 dollars, compared to -1.41480 dollars for other days, and a correlation of -0.46855 versus -0.49897. The average gap of -1.848124 before 2026 was crossed 1.67598% of the time in 2026. The lowest points were -6.68195 before 2026 and -3.65555 in 2026, excluding the March 2020 crash, which means this is not a global stress test. This analysis used a formal temporal holdout, which means it was not based on previously unseen data, as earlier runs had already inspected 2026. The results show that Monday gaps and historical sector regime selection do not support the claim of a permanent hedge or Monday advantage. The analysis only reports historical measurements and does not forecast future results, which would be an assumption. The strategy is to keep one share, with no increase in sizing, and no calibrated win odds or Kelly criterion.

The analysis is based on three premises: using fresh split-normalized adjusted SIP daily bars from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars, evaluating the current XLK/XLE/XLV equal basket, and estimating 1% gap thresholds from 2021-06-02 to 2025-12-31. The analysis found pair correlations before 2026 of 0.315635 for XLK/XLE, 0.500392 for XLK/XLV, and 0.293787 for XLE/XLV, and in 2026 of -0.247776, -0.158572, and -0.078192. The equal daily-return basket had an annualized volatility of 16.7368% versus 11.0104%, and the worst synchronized basket gap was -3.322667% versus -0.954476%. The analysis also found the following per-symbol threshold and test results: for XLK, the pre-2026 gap threshold was -2.5947445082801974%, with 2 test breaches out of 179, and a test breach rate of 1.1173184357541899%; for XLE, the pre-2026 gap threshold was -3.1902366689284984%, with 4 test breaches out of 179, and a test breach rate of 2.2346368715083798%; and for XLV, the pre-2026 gap threshold was -1.3698510638297818%, with 3 test breaches out of 179, and a test breach rate of 1.675977653631285%. The conclusion is that recent negative correlation reduces measured basket variance, but the XLE gap tail worsened, with the worst pre-2026 gap being -4.952927% versus -5.792734% in 2026. The decision is not to lower stress sizing from recent diversification. The validity of the analysis is based on direct historical comparison, but its soundness is limited by a small 179-day recent sample, current-winner selection, adjusted feed, and observed data vintage. This analysis is not an untouched strategy holdout and does not claim returns or win rates. All figures are stored in records 30442-43/30450.

A news scan found the headline about a 06UTC held-out gap calibration for the EEM training tail undercovers later observations. The premises of this calibration are: 1) adjusted open/prior-close minus 1 gaps from the primary feed at https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars?feed=sip&adjustment=all; 2) fixed training from 2021 to 2024 with 1004 observations and untouched-by-this-fit holdout from 2025 to September 18, 2026, with 429 observations; and 3) the current basket was selected after the fact, so this is a measurement calibration, not an out-of-sample strategy return, which refers to a strategy's performance on new, unseen data. The results are as follows: for EEM, the training set had 1004 observations, the test set had 429 observations, the 1% training threshold was -0.023161498373743362, the minimum training value was -0.052591847005536096, the minimum test value was -0.05737169009480214, there were 15 test exceedances, and the test exceedance rate was 0.03496503496503497, with a 1% test threshold of -0.03355377029926494; for QQQ, the training set had 1004 observations, the test set had 429 observations, the 1% training threshold was -0.019642697452250054, the minimum training value was -0.05357022225224606, the minimum test value was -0.04140786749482395, there were 7 test exceedances, and the test exceedance rate was 0.016317016317016316, with a 1% test threshold of -0.027485668992367554; and for IWM, the training set had 1004 observations, the test set had 429 observations, the 1% training threshold was -0.0225591653094287, the minimum training value was -0.0527219225110348, the minimum test value was -0.04711779448621556, there were 5 test exceedances, and the test exceedance rate was 0.011655011655011656, with a 1% test threshold of -0.02526703165930107. The common-date thresholds were exceeded in two or more names on 7 days and in all three names on 2 days. The EEM lower 1% training threshold had a 3.4965% holdout exceedance, compared to 1.6317% for QQQ and 1.1655% for IWM, which suggests that the stationarity, or the idea that the data's statistical properties are constant over time, is unsupported. The historical worst equal basket overnight loss was 93.33, with a loss of 10.637725 USD. A counterexample is that the QQQ and IWM holdout minima were less negative than their train minima, but no universal worsening is claimed. The selected basket, adjusted-price proxy, serial dependence, and provider revisions limit the inference, and no fees or stop implementation were modeled. No new strategy is proposed, and the existing larger stress envelope will be retained.

This analysis is based on certain premises. First, it uses adjusted daily returns from a specific data source, covering the years 2017-2022, 2023-2025, and 2026, with 1510, 752, and 179 data points, respectively. Second, it calculates ordinary least squares, or OLS, against the SPY, which is a type of stock market index, and finds equity beta values of 1.2436, 1.4622, and 0.2641 for CE, and 1.1838, 1.1138, and 0.9004 for EMN, with a correlation of 0.0657 in 2026 and an annual volatility of 53.24%. This analysis is descriptive and does not claim robust significance or causal relationships. Third, it looks at fixed-size trades, holding apart CE, and finds that out of 12 trades, 25% were winners, with an average win of 9.4077% and an average loss of 5.3917%, while for EMN, out of 15 trades, 13.333% were winners, with an average win of 15.1456% and an average loss of 4.5233%. The Half Kelly formula, which is used to calculate optimal bet size, is max(0, 0.5 * (p - (1-p) / (win/loss))), and in this case, it equals 0 for both. Fourth, it runs 20,000 independent and identically distributed, or IID, mean bootstraps, which are a type of statistical simulation, and finds 95% confidence intervals of -5.4125% to 3.1093% for CE and -4.8230% to 2.0034% for EMN, which represent uncertainty intervals, not downside bounds. The live supply ledger shows no measured slippage or historical fund edge, meaning no difference between the expected and actual trade prices, and no historical advantage of the fund. In conclusion, this analysis does not support a calibrated positive position size from this rule, and the changed equity beta is evidence against assuming an ordinary broad beta, but not proof of scarcity alpha, which refers to exceptional investment returns. The analysis is limited by the use of selected names and regimes, repeated historical windows, small samples, and serial dependence, which means that the results may not be applicable in other situations. Instead of claiming that the business cannot work, it is better to preserve a positive cash valuation countercase.

A news scan found the report titled R92004, which discusses the replication of a trading strategy. The report is based on certain premises, including a fixed prior of 252 high plus 1.5 volume, 21 session separation, and next open entry, which reproduces the median absolute values of 10.5263 for HALO and 17.2367 for P80, with a percentage of 17.2367. The report also mentions specific dates and prices, such as September 18 with a price of 112.45 and October 16 with a price of 130.23, which imply moves of 15.8115 and 28.2681 percent. The report concludes that a mandated gross pass is a real calculation, but not a robust win probability, and advises against raising confidence or using historical P80 as an 80 percent success rate. The report is based on current-strike intrinsic scenarios, not option returns, and assumes unchanged entry spot over 20 sessions from September 21 to October 16. The report also notes that the current financing hedges are unclassified and that there is a counterexample to stationarity, with HALO having a return of 34.19 percent in 2020 and -23.33 percent in 2025. The data source is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars and /data/option-chain/HALO?feed=indicative and TH.

The R92004 dividend audit was conducted based on certain premises. First, provider documents from Alpaca Markets define 'all' as including cash-dividend and split adjustments. Second, an analysis of 1584 sessions through September 18 showed that 17 out of 18 funds had changed closes, while GLD remained unchanged. Third, the issuer of EEM, iShares, provides 10 ex-dates from December 2021 to June 2026, and the XLE historical workbook from SSGA provides 20 ex-dates from September 2021 to June 2026. The implied dividend was calculated using the formula ImpliedD = Pprev * (1 - factorPrev / factorEx), where factor = all / raw, and this calculation matched the issuer's data within $0.008782 and $0.007846 at the historical share scale. The exact-factor replacement changed the EEM 252-day average from 28.311639% to 28.301024%, the XLE mean from 19.705216% to 19.711674%, and the XLE P90 from 0.206279467 to 0.206321613. The EEM P90 remained unchanged at 0.107179635. The raw split-only EEM 252-day average was 25.8543%, and the XLE mean was 18.0040%, resulting in no selection change. The EEM adjusted lead over QQQ was 5.442623 percentage points, and the sector XLK lead was 0.330904 percentage points, but the EEM + XLK 257.92 exceeded 240, so XLE remains a feasible selection. The audit supports the robust current selection and confirms sampled known payouts, but it does not detect all absent events or verify the equivalence of all 16 other issuer histories or reinvestment conventions. Small errors were consistent with price rounding, but their cause is unproven. There was no discretionary cash or quarantine, and no re-test of the accepted premium was conducted.

A review of dividend data found 231 issuer events that reconcile with historical records. The review aimed to determine if missing dividends could change the top 3 or P90 targets. It used three premises: matching 1332 SIP bars per symbol through September 18, requesting all versus split data, and using primary SSGA historical distributions data. The data showed that cash payments before December 5 were halved only for five split ETFs. The review compared daily changes in the all/split ratio against the prior split close and found a maximum absolute error of 2.284555 basis points and a median error of 0.312859 basis points. It also compounded the close and dividend payments for explicit ex-date close reinvestment. The results showed small differences between the calculated means and the feed data for XLK, XLE, XLV, and XLF. Omitting dividends did not change the basket or SMA eligibility. The conclusion is that dividend omission is not a current issue, and all-adjusted signals and targets should be retained. The validity of the review is limited by the use of same feed prices, issuer revision risk, rounding, and backward adjustment versus close-reinvestment convention. The review is a dated reconciliation, not a permanent certification, and a strong counterexample could still corrupt the next run. The data collection includes all fixed 11 assets, excludes out-of-universe assets, and does not include dividends before the fetched price start.

The analysis is based on three premises: same-date all/split responses are paired with 1434 bars each, provider documents include all cash dividends, and the issuer independently lists two distributions for EEM. The source of the bars is https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. A delta analysis was performed on several symbols, including SPY, TLT, EEM, EFA, GLD, IWM, and QQQ. The results show that the top three selections remain unchanged, but the return definitions are materially different. The annual delta percentage points (pp) range from 0.589355% for QQQ to 4.132789% for TLT. The analysis also found that IWM-SPY adjusted margin is 3.004713pp and SPY needs a 2.565342% extra cumulative gross-return correction relative to IWM to tie if other inputs are fixed. The EEM issuer's dividend reconstruction shows a difference of 0.002103pp between the ex-date-close reinvestment and adjusted methods. The largest all/split annual difference is 4.132789pp for TLT. The analysis concludes that the current selection is supported by observed robustness, but its soundness is bounded by common provider error.

The premises of this analysis are based on two main points. First, the analysis uses a fixed long-only chronological holdout test from 1989 to 1992, which utilizes data from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. Second, the win rate, average win, and average loss percentages are as follows: CE 17.647%, 21.6997%, and 6.0195% with 17 trades, IMOS 29.1667%, 16.6557%, and 6.7616% with 24 trades, BTDR 33.3333%, 42.9153%, and 16.8298% with 24 trades, and AMTX 33.3333%, 41.2324%, and 15.0053% with 21 trades. The Half Kelly risk fractions, which represent the stake-at-risk fractions, not capital allocation, are calculated as 0, 0.002054, 0.035946, and 0.045360. Additionally, the 20000 IID bootstrap mean confidence intervals all cross zero: CE [-5.833, 4.665]%, IMOS [-4.275, 4.664]%, BTDR [-8.060, 15.665]%, and AMTX [-7.657, 16.539]%. It is noted that average positive trade returns can coexist with negative compounded returns, and the arithmetic mean cannot be used as a proxy for profit and loss. The conclusion is that uncertain regime-dependent distributions do not establish an actual execution edge. There are no live post-reset supply trades to estimate slippage, and costs are based on assumptions. Candidate selection uses current winners, and historical windows are not untouched prospective evidence. The actual size is zero because the cash value and current rule gates fail, not because uncertainty itself forbids a convex probe.

A news scan found the headline 'R92002 new breakout calls pass coarse tail gate; corrected next-open samples and signed odds'. This is a report from an automated trading fund manager. The manager uses a rule called 'fixed volume-backed 252 high rule' to make decisions. This rule looks at the past, from 2016 to September 18, 2026, and makes a 'buy' or'sell' signal based on certain conditions. The manager also looks at 'histories' of stocks, including HALO, TH, and NEO. For HALO, the manager found 17 events with a median absolute change of 10.5263% and a probability of 80% of 17.2367%. For TH, the median absolute change was 27.3899% and the probability of 80% was 44.3186%. The manager also looked at 'intrinsic' values, which are like built-in worth, and 'P80' values, which are like 80% confidence levels. For example, for HALO, the intrinsic value was 1.83266 and the P80 value was 7.9681x. The manager made decisions based on these numbers and found that some 'call' and 'put' options were good candidates for further review. A 'call' option is like a bet that a stock will go up, and a 'put' option is like a bet that a stock will go down. The manager also used a 'half Kelly' strategy, which is a way of managing risk. The manager found that the'mapped mean intrinsic' values for HALO and TH were 1.72258 and 1.86638, respectively. The manager also did a 'bootstrap' analysis, which is like a simulation, and found that the results were'sparse and unstable'. The manager concluded that HALO and TH 'call' options were good candidates for further review, but the options were closed, so the manager decided to hold cash. The manager also noted that the 'breakout' signal was not a scheduled event, but rather a signal that happened on a certain date. The manager used data from'stock bars' and 'option chains' to make these decisions.

The Nasdaq directory at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/dynamic/SymDir/nasdaqlisted.txt and https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/dynamic/SymDir/otherlisted.txt contains 13,220 unique non-test entries. A snapshot from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-snapshots?feed=iex, which is a data feed, queried 12,836 entries after excluding 384 preferred formats, and returned 12,689 usable pairs, including 8,133 daily bars from September 18. A subset of 3,430 non-ETF entries with an IEX dollar volume greater than $100,000 had a median return of -0.55243%, with quartiles of -1.64402% and 0.40347%. The mean return was 0.59191% with a standard deviation of 50.059%, which was contaminated by a 29.17% corporate-action collision outlier, not economic market breadth. The initial whole batch failure from preferred syntax was repaired, and there were no final request errors. Broad discovery flagged FEAM, BTDR, SGML, IMOS, FPS, and AMTX, as well as a crypto-beta cohort, all of which require SIP actions and primary verification. Names without new bottleneck connections were rejected at screen only, not due to a fundamental verdict. The dataset is the current listing survivor universe, including ETFs, warrants, and preferreds, and is not a point-in-time all US security master or OTC. A full name keyword filter misses opaque company names, so CE, EMN, LYB, OLN, and MEOH were manually added to the chemical chain. Sources are close to the market, but IEX partial volume is not consolidated. The full raw files are located at /tmp/universe.csv, /tmp/snapshots.json, and /tmp/screen.csv. There is no order on 1-day returns.

A study of the R92002 fund's dependence on prior equity regime used daily stock prices from January 2020 to September 18, 2026. The study paired daily returns with gap openings and prior closes, scaling dollar changes. It used a regime based on the EEM fund's 20-session return, shifted one day, and excluded 20 missing regime observations. The results showed a daily correlation of 0.4347 and a gap correlation of 0.4569. The worst joint gap was -16.20 on March 16, 2020. The study found that in a weak-EEM regime, the daily correlation was 0.513, versus 0.323 in a nonnegative regime. The joint daily 1% tail was -6.53 versus -4.13. The study noted that the frequency of both downs alone misses severity. A news scan found the recent 252-day gap correlation was -0.417, which cannot establish a hedge when the full correlation is 0.457. The study made no causal claim, significance test, or independent strategy validation, and noted selection and survivorship biases, as well as regime change. The actual own closed means no measurable win rate, slippage, or empirical half Kelly. The study used a fixed one share, with no discretionary size increase.

The analysis is based on three premises: the current basket of stocks was selected looking back, the daily returns of the stocks are from the last 1260 days up to September 18, and a subset of 599 days where the equally weighted basket of stocks had a return of less than 0. The data comes from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars?feed=sip&adjustment=all. The correlation between the stocks QQQ and IWM is 0.778166, between QQQ and EEM is 0.692624, and between IWM and EEM is 0.650545 when looking at all the data. However, when only looking at the days when the stocks did poorly, the correlations are 0.615061, 0.475723, and 0.396780 respectively. These lower correlations are based on a specific set of conditions and do not necessarily mean that the stocks will help reduce losses during a crisis. In fact, if many investors sell their stocks at the same time, it can cause big losses even if the historical correlation between the stocks is not very high. This analysis is just a description of the data and does not provide any independent investment strategy or expected returns.

The analysis is based on two premises. First, a backtest of 3555 trades was conducted, with 49 trades used for training, 16 for holdout, and 5 recent trades, using data from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. Second, 20000 random resamples were generated using NumPy with a seed of 92000, resulting in mean confidence intervals of -3.723% to 2.966% for training, -5.924% to 13.196% for holdout, and -4.230% to 32.607% for recent trades. The holdout average win was 27.949% and average loss was 11.193%, with a win rate of 37.5%. The half Kelly risk fraction, which is the fraction of capital to be put at risk, was calculated as 0.06236 for training and 0.22371 for recent trades. This fraction is based on a two-point payoff model and is not the same as a 6.24% portfolio allocation. The correlation between FRO and POWL daily returns was found to be 0.0122 over 2693 common dates. The analysis concludes that while positive regimes are meaningful, the small sample size means that the odds are uncertain, and a recent-only Kelly strategy should not be used blindly. The absence of a current POWL entry and an unsupported target remain binding, resulting in an actual size of 0. A confidence interval crossing zero alone is not a reason to reject the strategy.

A news scan found the following analysis: Premises are based on ten issuer earnings dates observed from August 8 to 17, plus October 2024 sensitivity. Excluding ambiguous October data produces a median of 13.153864% and P80 of 21.271719%. Including either October 1 or October 2 reaction yields a median of 10.017371% and P80 of 20.107527%. A small event, Lamb Weston, with a stock price of 46.67 on October 16, has a put option with an ask price of 0.23 and a bid price of 0.18, requiring a 20.141418% move. This is an intrinsic value, which is a measure of an option's value, and it is 0.931230 times the required value, versus 4 times the required value, which is a benchmark. Excluding this event also fails to meet the required value of 3.293526 times. The analysis also looked at training data with a median of 16.290357% and holdout data with a median of 4.882973%. A bootstrap analysis, which is a statistical method, found a median of 2.5712% to 20.1075% and P80 of 10.0174% to 28.2374%. This uncertainty does not mean the event is a pass. The analysis also looked at option chains, which are lists of available options, and found that none of the 130 affordable and eligible options passed. Specifically, SFIX has a put option with a strike price of 2.5 and a price of 0.28, which still requires a 21.830986% move, versus a median of 16.578014% and P80 of 31.413933%. BB has a put option with a strike price of 7 and a price of 0.20, which needs a 14.893617% move, versus a median of 9.1152815% and P80 of 12.832986%. The sources of this data are option chains and daily bars, which are lists of stock prices. The figures describe the strike-plus-premium breakeven, which is the price at which an option becomes profitable, not the at-the-money implied move, which is a measure of an option's value. The P80 intrinsic is also not the actual option expected value, which is a measure of an option's value. The conclusion is to reject the quoted options, as the executable spreads and time value and future regime remain uncertain.

The audit is based on three premises: the current selected basket of 3536, the last 1260 aligned close returns through September 18, and the use of Pearson correlation, which describes normal conditions, not crisis conditions. The correlations between QQQ and IWM are 0.778166, between QQQ and EEM are 0.692624, and between IWM and EEM are 0.650545. The worst single-day loss for the basket was -15.1493 USD, with a 93.33 percent equal loss. This data comes from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars?feed=sip&adjustment=all. This shows that even when stocks are diversified, their correlations can increase during a crisis, and past losses do not predict future losses. The winners were chosen after the fact, so this is not a test of a real-world strategy. This does not mean the rankings or sizes should be changed. A gap scenario of 76.4427 is considered separately.

A study used daily stock data from January 2020 to September 18, 2026, to test a trading strategy. The data was normalized and came from a source called SIP. A gap was calculated as the difference between the opening price and the previous closing price minus one. The study looked at 1686 dates and scaled the results by 67.37 and 64.63. The study found that the correlation between two sets of data was 0.45693 over the whole period, but -0.41657 over the last 252 days. The worst loss was -16.20275 on March 16, 2020. The study also found that the 1% quantile was -4.12871. The results suggest that the assumption of a stable hedge is not valid due to a structural regime change. This means that the usual estimates of potential losses are not reliable.

This analysis is based on several premises. First, the cost of FRO was analyzed using a baseline of 3517 natural exits, with data from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. The results showed a mean return of -1.678% with a win rate of 22.92% in the training set of 48, a mean return of 0.0637% with a win rate of 36.36% in the holdout set of 11, and a mean return of 10.433% with a win rate of 66.67% in the 2026 set of 6, resulting in a compounded return of 72.863%. Second, using a NumPy seed of 91908, a bootstrap analysis of 20,000 independent and identically distributed trades showed a 95% mean confidence interval of -5.365% to 2.345% in the training set, -5.751% to 6.444% in the holdout set, and -0.630% to 21.096% in the recent set, but did not provide future loss bounds. The average win and loss were 12.564% and 7.079% in the holdout set, and 19.409% and 7.519% in the recent set, with a half Kelly risk of 0.002536, 0.002768, and 0.268768 in the training, holdout, and recent sets, respectively. Third, the daily return correlations between FRO and other stocks were 0.70715 for STNG, 0.60907 for LPG, and 0.74201 for LPG and BWLP, and 0.14275 for SPY and FRO. Several shipping names are partly one bet and not independent diversification. Fourth, the query trades supply was empty after the September 17 reset, and pre-reset operator liquidations cannot calibrate live edge or slippage. The recent regime improvement is real evidence, but was retrospectively selected. In conclusion, the analysis suggests retaining a watch on FRO and not claiming no edge just because the confidence interval crosses zero.

A review of Conagra's earnings events from January 2024 to July 2026, which had 29674 to 84 recorded events, primarily released at 7:30, along with PDF announcements in October, and a duplicate count on January 4, has been conducted. The review measured the reaction to these events from close to close, similar to the inherited median, without mixing it with the gap. The median absolute reaction was 2.0644096%, with the 80th percentile reaction being 5.4213318%, and the maximum reaction being 8.041958%. The signed mean reaction was -0.881869%. A separate overnight median reaction was 2.811245%, with the 80th percentile reaction being 5.124056%. A bootstrap analysis with 50,000 iterations and a seed of 91908 found the 95% confidence interval for the median reaction to be 1.5216% to 5.4213%, and the 80th percentile reaction to be 2.0644% to 8.0420%. The analysis did not model small sample or regime dependence. The current ask price is $15.13 and the bid price is $0.08 for the October 16 contract, which requires an 8.988764% reaction to reach the breakeven point, with no affordable expiry eligible legs passing. A news scan found the headline that Conagra Brands will release fiscal 2027 first-quarter earnings on September 30, 2026. The conclusion is to reject the current chain under both mandate gates. Even excluding the October 2025 event, the median reaction of 1.98285% and 80th percentile reaction of 4.58254% still fails. A counterexample of an unprecedented guidance collapse could pay, but there is no measured probability to justify overriding the rule. The sampling excludes older regimes before 2024 and does not measure the remaining 16 calendar-day option time value, with no option expected value claim. The sources of the data are event observations and https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars, which is an indicative chain.