Files
aura-quadriga/docs/arc-3-hypothesis-fanout.md
claude de92b4283d research: Arc 3 — six data-only signal families, designed engine-blind
Six confirm/refute families (vol-normalized momentum, mean-reversion
z-fade, vol-regime-gated breakout, H4 EMA trend, H4 breakout port,
channel-position fade) authored by engine-blind agents from a distilled
reference card plus the CLI validation loop, adversarially design-reviewed,
then run over 4 instruments x 3 stop regimes. Five honest nulls; one
candidate (vol-normalized momentum on US500, WF-OOS P<=0.05 in all three
regimes) forwarded to the Arc 4 breadth test.
2026-07-13 18:07:26 +02:00

89 lines
5.0 KiB
Markdown
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Arc 3 — six new data-only signal families, designed engine-blind
**Date:** 2026-07-13
**Engine:** aura @ `84e1075` (release build)
**Blueprints:** `blueprints/{mom-vnorm-h1,meanrev-z-h1,bo-h1-volregime,trend-h4-cross,bo-h4-trend,channelpos-fade-h1}.json`
**Campaigns:** `research/campaign-arc3-*.json`
## Method
Two experiments in one arc.
**The research question:** which signal families expressible in the std
vocabulary alone carry directional information on H1/H4 bars? Six families,
each a confirm/refute hypothesis (a base signal or a conditioner-over-base),
were run over the Arc 1 four-instrument matrix × three stop regimes
(vol{3,k2} = Arc 1, vol{60,k6}, vol{60,k12} = the Arc 2c ladder) with
vol-proportional slippage, through the Arc 1 pipeline (deflated screen →
90/30 WF → pooled-OOS bootstrap → generalize).
**The meta-experiment:** every blueprint was designed by an agent that had
*no access to engine sources* — only a distilled authoring reference card
(node vocabulary with port tables, op-script grammar, document schemas, unit
semantics, design rules) plus the CLI validation loop (`graph build`,
`introspect --params`, three-tier `campaign validate`). Each design passed an
independent adversarial design review (look-ahead, unit-consistency, wiring,
grid sanity, hypothesis shape) before anything ran. Result: 6/6 families
built and validated green on the first run attempt — evidence that the
deployment posture (docs + self-describing CLI, no sources) is sufficient
for the authoring role *if* the semantic gaps named in Arc 2's engine-gap
list are closed by documentation.
## The families and their verdicts
| family | hypothesis (compressed) | verdict |
|---|---|---|
| `mom_vnorm_h1` | sign of (close close₋ₙ)/realized-vol carries direction | **candidate** on US500; null elsewhere |
| `meanrev_z_h1` | H1 deviations from SMA in std units revert | null |
| `bo_h1_volregime` | vol-expansion regime reshapes the H1 breakout | null (no reshaping that survives) |
| `trend_h4_cross` | H4 EMA-spread in vol units carries direction | null, OOS strongly negative |
| `bo_h4_trend` | Arc 1 pair stabilizes on H4 bars | null — textbook IS-overfit signature |
| `channelpos_fade_h1` | position in the recent range mean-reverts | null, extreme churn |
## Findings
1. **Vol-normalized momentum on US500 is the only regime-robust OOS positive
of the whole program.** Pooled WF-OOS gross bootstrap: mean +0.171
(P(E[R]≤0) = 0.026, n=8951) at vol{3,k2}; +0.102 (P = 0.036) at vol{60,k6};
+0.071 (P = 0.044) at vol{60,k12}. Winner parameters are stable
(mom_lag=72 ≈ 3 days, vol_avg=24) across regimes, and full-window net (at
slippage stress) turns positive at wide stops (+0.012 at k6, +0.028 at
k12). Deflated scores stay slightly negative — within its own 9-member
family the winner is not distinguishable from luck; the OOS consistency
across three (correlated) regimes is what makes this a candidate rather
than a null. GER40 leans the same way gross (OOS +0.10, P 0.15) without
getting there; EURUSD and XAUUSD are OOS noise.
2. **The H4 breakout is a lesson in why the pipeline exists.** Full-window
nets look excellent (XAUUSD: 79/9 members net-positive per regime, best
+0.37; US500 deflated +0.028 at k6) while the WF-OOS bootstraps are noise
(P 0.370.79) and generalize floors are the worst of the arc (0.55 to
1.40, sign 0/4). 90-day refit windows on H4 bars leave ~540 bars per
window — the refits chase noise the full-window fit averages away.
Without the WF/MC stages this family would have been a false discovery.
3. **Conditioners keep failing on this breakout.** Arc 1's trend gate and
arc 3's vol-expansion gate both fail to produce a reshaping that survives
the pipeline — the base H1 breakout's instrument-dependence (Arc 1's
core finding) is not explained by trend or vol regime.
4. **Mean-reversion families select at the grid edge** (`meanrev_z_h1` picks
window=24 and fade=0.5, both extreme values; `channelpos_fade_h1` runs
14 00026 000 trades) — the H1 mean-reversion hypothesis wants a faster
timescale than this grid, and pays for it in churn. A refinement would
need finer bars and a cost-realistic churn budget, not more grid points.
## Verdict
Five honest nulls and one candidate. `mom_vnorm_h1` earns a breadth test
(`research/campaign-arc4-breadth-mom-vnorm.json`, 22 instruments) against
the always-long beta control (`research/campaign-control-always-long.json`)
— US500 20182026 is a secular bull market, and a 3-day momentum long-lean
on an index that mostly rose must beat beta, not zero, before it is
interesting. See `docs/arc-4-breadth-and-controls.md`.
## Engine friction
None new beyond the Arc 2 list. The campaign path carried six new blueprint
families, a degenerate one-member control sweep, and 22-instrument matrices
without a single executor complaint; every authoring error was caught at
`graph build` / three-tier validate time with a message that named the
problem.