The problem
Investment reasoning is easy to write and hard to audit a year later, because the thing that would have changed the answer never gets written down.
My role
I defined the problem and specified the recommendation record, its confidence level and its falsifier, and I ratified the work; AI agents wrote most of the code under my gates.
What was built
The implemented foundation imports company filings, records when their information became available, checks ingest counts and checksums, and watches for new filings. Read-only validation and a kill switch are part of that core.
The broader design calls for recommendations with confidence levels and stated falsifiers. That recommendation pipeline is not established as implemented by the source reviewed here. No trading code is part of the design.
Evidence
The August 20 verification record reports 475 passing tests, one skipped group and nine strict expected failures, each documenting a confirmed finding. The adversarial work includes path traversal, a ticker splice and NaN poisoning; the suite includes an execution mode with network access disabled.
This is dated engineering evidence. It is not a current test run, a record of investment recommendations in use, or a measured investment result.
What this does not show
The reviewed record does not establish a deployed recommendation product or a track record of recommendations scored against later events. A recommendation example would illustrate the design and must be labelled as an invented design example.