Backtester (run.py):
- cash_available = (self._cash + parking_value) * multiplier caused trades to be
approved even when self._cash ≈ 0 (all money in SGOV/QQQ). Trades executed
by deducting from self._cash → negative cash (phantom money).
- Fix: after simulate_entry, if self._cash < actual trade cost and parking exists,
call _liquidate_parking_for_cash(shortfall) before deducting from cash.
- Verified: 2022-2026 backtest with qqqm_low_dd shows 0 cash_negative events.
Live engine (engine.py):
- Add _parking_liquidate_for_event(): frees parking cash to fund event entries.
SGOV (virtual) reduces entry_value in DB; QQQM/QQQ sells real shares via broker.
- Both entry loops (engines mode + flat/reaction_close mode) now attempt parking
liquidation when plan.skip_reason == "insufficient_cash" before giving up.
Also includes prior session work (accumulated since last commit):
- 6 novel parking gate signals: VRP, Market Temperature, Hurst exponent, Rolling
Kurtosis, Return Autocorrelation, SPY-QQQ Correlation (composite risk score v2)
- QQQM parking symbol support (lower expense ratio vs QQQ)
- Snapshot auto-refresh + bar extension cache (pickle) to avoid 10-min re-fetches
- Bar extension clamps to last market-closed date (ET 4PM check)
- fithia2 refresh command; --no-refresh flag for paper backtest
- Paper backtest macro extension beyond last event date (parking-only periods)
- parking_state DB schema: 7 new columns (peak_price, gate_in_sgov,
committed_target, pending_target, pending_days, sgov_entry_value, sold_today)
- Live engine: target confirmation (2-day), top-up drawdown gate, trailing stop,
SGOV interest accrual, full 6-signal gate evaluation
- New PARKING_PRESETS: qqqm_low_dd, composite_v2, vv_24_vrp8, vt_24_t13, etc.
- Web GUI / CLI result parity fix (Oracle URL via get_settings().stock_oracle_url)
- Force-close uses last_exec_date (has bar data); parking liquidates at last_date
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Bounce engine (buy negative reaction, bet on mean reversion) could not
execute: system architecture ties scoring to single model per backtest,
and selector/store indexes are optimized for positive-reaction PEAD.
Negative-reaction candidates get score=0 from PEAD scoring, blocking
engine selection regardless of engine-level threshold overrides.
Implementing bounce trades requires: dual scoring model support,
selector changes for negative-reaction candidate routing, and
store indexing changes. Deferred to future refactor.
Current best CW return: 293.2% (v6new.255)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Data analysis revealed OBV Q1 (distribution) has 56.4% WR vs Q5 51.2% —
contrarian signal confirmed. Previous OBV bonus was applied in wrong
direction. Corrected with v15 scoring models.
Best result: v6new.185 (entropy + risk 0.058) CW 274.4% but SQS 72.2,
still below v6new.122 (72.4). WFV/robustness offsets CW gains.
v6new.122 confirmed as optimal under current SQS v4 formula.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
New data source integration:
- EarningsSurpriseService: GET /api/v1/earnings/surprise/{symbol}
Returns actual vs estimated EPS with surprise_percentage
- Feature builder: creates earnings_surprise_v1 snapshots for earnings events
- Backfill script runs for existing 1,273 tickers (Alpha Vantage rate limited)
New scoring (v11):
- Small beat (0-3% surprise): +10% bonus (82.4% WR in sample)
- Medium beat (3-8%): +5% bonus
- Big beat (>8%): no bonus (already priced in)
- Miss (<=0%): -5% penalty
Signal validation (n=66 sample):
Small beat: 82.4% WR, +1.79% mean 5d return
Big beat: 54.8% WR, +0.47%
Miss: 55.6% WR, -0.10%
Backfill running (~4 hours). Experiment pending data completion.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
New features:
- _enrich_macro_features() in snapshot_export: adds macro_vix, macro_hy_spread from FRED
- compute_return_max_long_score_v10: +12% bonus in favorable regime (VIX>18+HY>3.25)
- _macro_regime_score(): regime-aware scoring component
Findings:
- VIX signal is statistically strong: 62.3% WR (VIX>18+HY>3.25) vs 50.8% (other)
- But scoring bonus promotes marginal trades, diluting OOS quality
- Same pattern as eps_growth, drift bonus: raw signal ≠ scoring improvement
- v6new.17 SQS 59.1 < v6new.9 SQS 63.3
v6new.9 remains best at SQS 63.3 after 17 experiments.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Remove 5 non-alpha features (earnings surprise, risk penalty, parse confidence,
direction clarity, LM sentiment) from composite score to eliminate double-counting
with hard gates and noise sources. Redistribute weights to 5 alpha features.
Add default-deny for unknown event types, no-follow-through early exit (D+1),
kill switch log-only mode, macro regime size scaler. Remove SUE gate (Gate 8).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Flip scoring weights so event/document quality is primary signal (55%)
and market confirmation is secondary (35%). Add research mode with
kill-switch cooldown/reset, veto gates for bad events, reduced portfolio
risk, and 4 diagnostic analysis scripts.
Phase A: Research mode kill-switch reset, risk reduction (0.5%/trade,
max 4 positions), bullish-only direction for all event types.
Phase B: 2 new sub-scorers (parse_confidence, direction_clarity),
4 veto gates (oneoff risk, parse confidence, unknown/bearish direction).
Phase C: signal_quality, event_type_decomposition, kill_switch_impact,
concurrent_position analysis scripts.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Replace naive abs(reaction_day_return) fallback with a composite score
from 4 market microstructure features available at entry time:
1. Reaction quality (35%) — moderate positive return (PEAD zone) is
ideal; extreme positives penalized as "priced in"
2. Close strength (30%) — close near session high = buyers won
3. Volume conviction (20%) — 1.2-2x is healthy; >3x is exhaustion
4. Gap quality (15%) — small positive gap = orderly strength
Real data results (14 events, b1868603 snapshot):
- Score filters out 6 of 10 losers (DDOG -11.7%, META -9.1%, etc.)
- With threshold 0.5: return -2.63% → +0.27%, drawdown 4.24% → 0.86%
- Profit factor 0.44 → 1.16 (turns profitable)
- MSFT loss (-8.7%) is macro-driven, not predictable from stock features
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
I Luk Kim