decision_quality: Decision quality was mixed but directionally sound on risk. The council correctly stayed defensive in a persistent BEAR regime and repeatedly identified the true problem sleeves: crypto_digital, quantum, and later energy_grid via SMR. Those warnings matched realized portfolio damage: largest unrealized losses remain in SMR (-12.8%), MSTR (-11.0%), PLTR (-6.1%), IONQ (-7.1%), COIN (-4.3%), and ISRG (-6.1%). The biggest weakness was implementation efficiency: Risk Sentinel vetoed every session, yet execution plans still often proposed buys into the very sleeves being flagged, especially quantum/crypto/energy_grid. Thesis Analyst also kept trying to upgrade contested themes (defense_aerospace, energy_grid, biotech_health, ai_compute) without enough improvement in price confirmation, so many recommendations were predictably vetoed. Best calls: maintaining high defensive conviction, keeping crypto/quantum at floor, and refusing broad AI upgrades. Weakest calls: repeated attempts to add defense/energy/biotech before risk conditions cleared, and occasional narrative-led optimism in quantum/crypto that was not confirmed by tape.

assessment: Macro framing was consistently correct: persistent BEAR, restrictive rates, elevated volatility, and weak sentiment/labor were the right backdrop. Theme impact ordering was mostly right as well: defensives best, crypto/quantum worst, real estate pressured. Minor issue: some session-to-session impact-score drift on energy_grid/real_estate was noisier than necessary.

assessment: Narrative detection was strong on AI-power convergence, crypto miner stress, and defense procurement narrowing. It correctly identified several real shifts before they were fully reflected. However, it occasionally over-weighted early positive shifts in crypto and quantum that did not translate into returns, and sometimes labeled continuations as actionable shifts.

assessment: Too aggressive for the regime. The bullish structural bias remained too visible: repeated +1 proposals in defense_aerospace, energy_grid, biotech_health, quantum, and ai_compute were often not supported by short-term relative strength or unresolved drawdown conditions. Good restraint on crypto/quantum at times, but overall still too eager to find upgrade paths.

assessment: Risk flags were substantively correct. It consistently identified concentration breaches, VaR excess, and drawdown stress before or while losses persisted. The main issue is over-dominance and some procedural inefficiency: with veto active every session, the system generated many low-value contested proposals anyway. The threshold may be slightly too permissive relative to how often portfolio risk still exceeded it, or influence may be too high for productive council dynamics.

patterns_detected: Council process is inefficient: repeated vetoes with repeated bullish re-proposals indicate Thesis Analyst and Risk Sentinel are not calibrated to each other.

patterns_detected: Systematic bullish bias in Thesis Analyst under BEAR regime; narrative-led upgrades were attempted before price/risk confirmation.

patterns_detected: Risk was correctly concentrated as the main issue, especially in crypto_digital and quantum where HHI breaches persisted all week.

patterns_detected: Energy_grid was narratively attractive but structurally too unstable because SMR dominated sleeve risk; theme was repeatedly misjudged as near-ready for upgrade.

patterns_detected: Defense_aerospace was fundamentally strong, but PLTR contaminated the sleeve and caused repeated false-start upgrade attempts.

patterns_detected: Defensive theme was the cleanest winner and should remain the anchor; no evidence it was over-owned.

patterns_detected: Biotech_health was repeatedly overestimated on narrative/product news while relative strength stayed weak and policy risk worsened.

patterns_detected: Execution/rebalancing logic appears to buy into stressed sleeves despite veto context, amplifying friction between council intent and portfolio outcome.

portfolio_health: Portfolio health is fragile but not broken. Equity is 99,568.14, implying a modest weekly drawdown from par rather than catastrophic loss, but the internal quality is uneven. The book still carries too many stressed speculative positions: SMR, MSTR, IONQ, COIN, ISRG, PLTR are the main damage pockets. Offsetting strength exists in CRSP, SMCI, UEC, TSM, RTX, NEE, KO, GLD, and some defense names. Concentration by theme conviction is sensible at the top end (defensive 9, defense 5, AI 4), but actual position-level risk remains misaligned with theme intent because a few volatile names dominate sleeve behavior. Win/loss mix is acceptable in defensive and selected industrial/AI infrastructure names, but speculative sleeves still degrade portfolio efficiency. Overall: survivable, but still carrying more tail-risk than a BEAR-regime portfolio should.

calibration_rationale: Adjustments are intentionally small-to-moderate. Macro Oracle worked well, so only a slight bearish tilt and a small influence increase are warranted to better anchor the council in regime reality. Narrative Intelligence stays important but should be slightly less forceful and slightly less optimistic because several positive shifts in crypto/quantum were early and not monetizable. Thesis Analyst needs the clearest recalibration: bullish bias should come down from 0.70 to 0.55, influence should be trimmed, and conviction_delta_cap should fall from 2 to 1 so it stops repeatedly forcing upgrade attempts in unresolved risk conditions. Risk Sentinel was directionally right, but its dominance should be reduced slightly to improve council usefulness while still preserving protection; raising veto_threshold from 0.70 to 0.74 makes vetoes a bit harder to trigger, but lowering conviction_delta_cap to 1 keeps any approved changes incremental. Net effect: fewer contested +1 proposals, better alignment between macro/risk and thesis, and less churn in a still-bearish regime.

summary: Keep the council defensive, but make it less self-contradictory. Macro and risk were mostly right; thesis was too bullish for the tape. Recalibrate by reducing Thesis Analyst aggression, slightly tempering Narrative Intelligence, modestly strengthening Macro Oracle, and slightly reducing Risk Sentinel dominance while making all changes more incremental.


decision_quality:
**CATASTROPHIC DECISION QUALITY — SYSTEMIC PARALYSIS**

The week of March 30 – April 3, 2026 produced 25 council sessions, ALL of which were vetoed by the Risk Sentinel. This is the defining characteristic of the week: **zero conviction increases were executed across 25 sessions despite multiple high-quality thesis signals**.

**Conviction changes that DID execute (decreases only):**
- defense_aerospace: 7→6→5→4 (three reductions across the week)
- energy_grid: 3→2 (one reduction)
- biotech_health: 6→5→3→2 (three reductions, appropriate given pharma tariff shock)
- crypto_digital: remained at floor 1 (multiple -1 signals clamped)
- real_estate: remained at floor 1

**Conviction changes BLOCKED by veto (contested):**
- defense_aerospace +1: Proposed ~8 times, vetoed every time despite being the strongest quant theme (+24% 3m momentum, +13.5% RS vs SPY, all Sharpe >1.0). The thesis was correct — LMT, NOC, LHX delivered exceptional returns.
- biotech_health +1: Proposed ~5 times early in the week on GLP-1 oral delivery narrative (Foundayo FDA approval). Correctly vetoed later as tariff shock materialized.
- ai_compute +1: Proposed ~3 times, vetoed. Theme momentum stalled (3m near 0%) — veto was arguably correct.
- crypto_digital +1: Proposed twice on Coinbase trust charter narrative. Correctly vetoed given COIN/MSTR drawdown proximity.
- energy_grid +1: Proposed ~4 times on GEV/NEE strength. Correctly vetoed given SMR active breach.

**Key Decision Quality Assessment:**
1. The biotech_health conviction reduction trajectory (6→2) was the week's best decision — correctly identified and acted on the pharma tariff narrative shift.
2. The defense_aerospace conviction reduction (7→4) was INCORRECT — the theme delivered the best risk-adjusted returns in the portfolio. The reductions were driven by PLTR contamination and Iran de-escalation fears that proved premature.
3. The persistent veto of defense_aerospace +1 proposals was the week's biggest missed opportunity — the thesis was right, the quant confirmed it, and the veto was driven by portfolio-level PRS, not theme-specific weakness.
4. The system correctly identified SMR, COIN, MSTR, PLTR, and LEN as critical positions requiring exit — but FAILED to execute any exits across 25 sessions. This is the fundamental design flaw: the Risk Sentinel can veto but cannot force exits.

**Portfolio P&L:** Equity at $99,437 (starting ~$100K implied), representing a ~-0.56% loss. Given a 16+ day BEAR regime with VIX 25-31, this is actually reasonable — the defensive positioning (conviction 9) prevented worse outcomes. But the unrealized losses in SMR (-$133), MSTR (-$121), PLTR (-$127), IONQ (-$109), and CEG (-$146) represent ~$636 of concentrated losses in positions the system identified as needing exit weeks ago.

notes: Correctly identified and maintained BEAR regime interpretation throughout. Accurately flagged consumer sentiment collapse (-8.1 to -12.5% YoY), rising unemployment (4.0→4.4%), and growth deceleration. Theme impact scores were directionally correct — defensive (+0.45 to +0.65) and defense_aerospace (+0.15 to +0.35) were the only positive themes, which matched actual performance. Weakness: inflation outlook was repetitive and added little incremental value session-over-session. The macro context was largely unchanged across 25 sessions, leading to significant redundancy. Missing VIX data in some sessions reduced precision. The Fed stance assessment ('restrictive hold') was correct but could have been more decisive about the implications for rate-sensitive themes earlier.

notes: The strongest performing agent this week. Key narrative shifts were correctly identified and timed: (1) GLP-1 oral delivery disruption (Foundayo FDA approval) — correctly flagged as category-defining before the market fully priced it. (2) Pharma tariff shock (100% on branded drugs) — correctly identified the escalation from threat to scheduled structural event across sessions. (3) Defense bifurcation (structural replenishment vs tactical war premium) — correctly identified that PPA ETF was falling during active war, signaling the market was already pricing de-escalation. (4) Coinbase trust charter — correctly identified as a structural regulatory legitimization event orthogonal to crypto price action. (5) Bitcoin miner identity crisis (MARA/Riot pivot to AI/HPC) — correctly identified as industry-wide, not idiosyncratic. (6) Iran de-escalation whipsaw — correctly identified the same-day threat/resolution dynamic. Weakness: narrative scores sometimes oscillated too much session-to-session on the same theme without new information. The quantum narrative recovery signal (Xanadu IPO) was noted but never translated to actionable conviction.

notes: Mixed performance. The structural bullish bias (0.7 sentiment_bias) was a significant liability in a sustained BEAR regime. Key issues: (1) PERSISTENT OVER-PROPOSAL: The Thesis Analyst proposed defense_aerospace +1 in ~8 consecutive sessions knowing it would be vetoed, wasting analytical bandwidth. After the 3rd veto, the signal was clear — the portfolio-level constraint was binding. (2) CORRECT BIOTECH REDUCTION: The -2 delta on biotech_health (5→3) on the tariff shock was the week's best thesis call — timely, well-reasoned, and appropriately sized. (3) INCORRECT DEFENSE REDUCTION: Proposed defense_aerospace -1 on Iran de-escalation fears that proved premature (defense primes continued to outperform). The conviction went from 7→4 when the theme was delivering +24% 3m momentum. (4) MISSED AI COMPUTE DETERIORATION: Held ai_compute at 4 throughout despite 3m momentum collapsing to near-zero and MSFT/SMCI showing negative Sharpe ratios. Should have proposed -1 earlier. (5) CRYPTO FLOOR MANAGEMENT: Correctly held crypto at floor 1 but the repeated -1 signals (clamped to 1) were redundant. (6) The structural bullish bias caused the analyst to keep proposing increases in a BEAR regime where the Risk Sentinel would always veto — a fundamental misalignment between bias and regime.

notes: The Risk Sentinel was DIRECTIONALLY CORRECT on every veto — the portfolio was genuinely at risk with SMR in active breach, COIN/MSTR near breach, and PLTR at critical levels. However, the agent's effectiveness was severely undermined by a design flaw: it can veto but cannot force position exits. This led to 27 consecutive vetoes with zero remediation — the very definition of a broken feedback loop. Specific issues: (1) CORRECT IDENTIFICATION: SMR, COIN, MSTR, PLTR, LEN, CEG were all correctly flagged as critical/breach positions with accurate VaR calculations and days-to-breach estimates. (2) EXCESSIVE VETO SCOPE: The blanket veto prevented ALL conviction increases, including defense_aerospace where the non-PLTR positions had zero drawdown risk. A more surgical approach — vetoing only themes with breached positions while allowing increases in clean themes — would have been superior. (3) PRS CALCULATION: The 0.73-0.85 range was consistently above the 0.70 threshold, but the PRS appeared to be dominated by a few positions (SMR, COIN, MSTR) that the system couldn't exit. The veto threshold of 0.70 may be too low for a system that cannot force exits. (4) DEFENSIVE FLOOR: Correctly maintained at 9 throughout — this was the right call. (5) The escalating rhetoric ('systemic failure of risk governance,' 'capital negligence') was accurate but unproductive — the system needs an exit mechanism, not louder warnings.

patterns_detected: VETO PARALYSIS LOOP: The Risk Sentinel vetoed 27 consecutive sessions because breached positions (SMR, COIN, MSTR, PLTR) were never exited. The system can reduce conviction but cannot force position exits — conviction at floor 1 still holds positions. This is the #1 systemic design flaw. The execution engine only trades based on conviction-driven drift rebalancing, not risk-driven forced exits. Result: positions flagged for exit 10+ sessions ago are still in the portfolio, accumulating losses.

patterns_detected: THESIS ANALYST BULLISH BIAS vs BEAR REGIME MISMATCH: The Thesis Analyst's 0.7 sentiment_bias caused persistent proposals for conviction increases in a 99.8% BEAR regime where the Risk Sentinel would always veto. This created a predictable, wasteful cycle: propose +1 → get vetoed → propose +1 again next session. The bias should be regime-adaptive, not static.

patterns_detected: DEFENSE_AEROSPACE CONTAMINATION BY PLTR: The strongest quant theme in the portfolio (LMT +50% 3m, NOC +38%, LHX +35%) was held hostage by a single position (PLTR at 77-98% of threshold). The Risk Sentinel correctly identified PLTR risk but incorrectly applied a blanket veto to the entire theme. A position-level exit mechanism for PLTR would have unlocked the defense thesis.

patterns_detected: NARRATIVE SHIFTS CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED BUT NOT ACTIONABLE: The Narrative Intelligence agent identified 8+ genuine narrative shifts (GLP-1 oral delivery, pharma tariff, defense budget step-change, Coinbase trust charter, Bitcoin miner pivot, defense bifurcation, quantum vertical integration, AI efficiency disruption). However, only the biotech_health tariff shift translated to conviction action (reduction). All bullish shifts were blocked by the veto.

patterns_detected: EXECUTION PLAN DRIFT REBALANCING BUYING BREACHED POSITIONS: A critical flaw — the execution engine's drift rebalancing was BUYING more SMR, IONQ, RGTI, MARA, and COIN shares to maintain target allocations, even as these positions were flagged for exit. The execution plan bought 4-8 shares of SMR in multiple sessions while the Risk Sentinel was demanding exit. This is a direct contradiction between the risk and execution layers.

patterns_detected: DEFENSIVE THEME PERFORMING AS DESIGNED: Conviction 9 on defensive was the week's best-performing allocation decision. JNJ (+61% YoY, Sharpe 2.24), GLD (+44% 6m, Sharpe 1.42), and KO (+10% YTD) all delivered positive returns with minimal drawdown. The defensive floor mechanism worked correctly.

patterns_detected: ENERGY_GRID BIFURCATION: GEV (Sharpe 2.37, +40% 3m) and NEE (+29% 6m) were exceptional performers, while SMR (-69% 6m, in active breach) was catastrophic. The theme conviction of 2 was too low for the winners and too high for the losers — the system lacks position-level conviction granularity.

patterns_detected: CRYPTO_DIGITAL STRUCTURAL BREAKDOWN CORRECTLY DIAGNOSED BUT NOT ACTED UPON: The narrative agents correctly identified MARA's BTC liquidation, Strategy's buying pause, and Coinbase's trust charter as structural shifts. But with conviction already at floor 1 and no exit mechanism, the diagnosis was academic — positions continued to bleed.

patterns_detected: MACRO ORACLE REDUNDANCY: The Macro Oracle produced nearly identical assessments across 25 sessions (BEAR 99.8%, unemployment 4.3-4.4%, CPI 2.66%, Fed 3.64%). While accurate, the lack of incremental information made the agent's output increasingly low-value. The agent should have a 'no material change' mode to reduce cost and noise.

patterns_detected: BIOTECH CONVICTION TRAJECTORY WAS THE WEEK'S BEST RISK MANAGEMENT: biotech_health went from 6→5→3→2 across the week, correctly tracking the pharma tariff escalation from threat to confirmed policy. This is the model working as intended — narrative shift detected, conviction reduced, capital preserved.

portfolio_health:
**PORTFOLIO HEALTH: CRITICAL — STRUCTURAL RISK GOVERNANCE FAILURE**

**Equity:** $99,437.16 (approx -0.56% from $100K starting capital)
**Unrealized P&L:** Net negative, concentrated in 5-6 positions

**Win/Loss Distribution:**
- Winners (unrealized gains): AMD (+$83), TSM (+$72), SMCI (+$92), CRSP (+$107), GLD (+$64), MSFT (+$45), META (+$56), KO (+$44)
- Losers (unrealized losses): SMR (-$133), MSTR (-$121), PLTR (-$127), CEG (-$146), IONQ (-$109), COIN (-$99), ISRG (-$92), RGTI (-$48), ABBV (-$26), LEN (-$26)

**Concentration Analysis:**
- Defensive theme (conviction 9): ~$8,000 in KO, PG, JNJ, GLD, TLT — performing well, minimal drawdowns
- Defense_aerospace (conviction 4): ~$12,000 in LMT, RTX, NOC, LHX, GD, PLTR — strong ex-PLTR, PLTR is -$127 drag
- AI_compute (conviction 4): ~$13,000 across 10 names — bifurcated between TSM/ASML winners and MSFT/SMCI laggards
- Crypto_digital (conviction 1): ~$3,900 in COIN, MSTR, MARA, XYZ — all underwater except XYZ
- Energy_grid (conviction 2): ~$7,100 — GEV/NEE strong, SMR (-$133) and CEG (-$146) catastrophic
- Quantum (conviction 1): ~$3,100 — IONQ (-$109) and RGTI (-$48) bleeding
- Biotech_health (conviction 2): ~$9,300 — CRSP (+$107) bright spot, NVO flat, ISRG (-$92) weak
- Real_estate (conviction 1): ~$3,500 — LEN (-$26) weak, others flat

**Critical Position Breaches (unresolved all week):**
1. SMR: -$133 unrealized loss, -9.9% portfolio drawdown, 105% annualized volatility
2. CEG: -$146 unrealized loss, approaching 12% threshold
3. PLTR: -$127 unrealized loss, 77-98% of 10% threshold consumed
4. MSTR: -$121 unrealized loss, 69% of 20% threshold consumed
5. IONQ: -$109 unrealized loss, 46% of 25% threshold consumed
6. COIN: -$99 unrealized loss, 73% of 20% threshold consumed

**What Saved the Portfolio:**
The defensive allocation (conviction 9) with JNJ, GLD, KO, PG, TLT at near-zero drawdowns provided the ballast that prevented worse outcomes. Without this, the portfolio would be down significantly more. The defensive floor mechanism is the single most important risk management tool that actually worked this week.

calibration_rationale:
**Parameter Changes and Rationale:**

**1. Macro Oracle: influence_weight 0.8→0.6, sentiment_bias 0.0→-0.1**
- RATIONALE: The Macro Oracle produced nearly identical output across 25 sessions in a locked BEAR regime. Its influence should be reduced when the regime is stable — the incremental information value was near-zero after the first few sessions. The slight negative bias (-0.1) reflects the reality that in a BEAR regime, the macro agent should lean slightly bearish rather than neutral to avoid false optimism signals. When the regime transitions, this can be reset to 0.0.

**2. Narrative Intelligence: influence_weight 1.0→1.2, sentiment_bias unchanged at 0.0**
- RATIONALE: The Narrative Intelligence agent was the best-performing agent this week, correctly identifying 8+ narrative shifts with good timing. Its influence should be INCREASED because narrative shifts (pharma tariff, defense budget, Coinbase charter, GLP-1 oral) were the primary drivers of conviction changes that actually executed. The 0.0 sentiment_bias is correct — narrative should be directionally neutral and let the data speak.

**3. Thesis Analyst: sentiment_bias 0.7→0.3, conviction_delta_cap unchanged at 2**
- RATIONALE: The 0.7 bullish bias was the single biggest calibration error this week. It caused the Thesis Analyst to persistently propose conviction increases in a BEAR regime where they would always be vetoed, creating a wasteful cycle. Reducing to 0.3 maintains a slight structural bullish lean (appropriate for a long-biased system) while making the analyst more responsive to regime conditions. The analyst should NOT be proposing +1 deltas 8 times in a row when the veto is clearly regime-driven. At 0.3, the analyst will still identify bullish opportunities but will be more selective about when to propose them. The conviction_delta_cap of 2 is appropriate — the biotech -2 delta was the week's best call.

**4. Risk Sentinel: veto_threshold 0.70→0.65, influence_weight 1.5→1.3, sentiment_bias -0.8→-0.6**
- RATIONALE: This is the most nuanced calibration. The veto threshold is being LOWERED from 0.70 to 0.65, which seems counterintuitive given the risk failures. The logic: the current 0.70 threshold triggered 27 consecutive vetoes without any remediation — the system was in a permanent veto state that prevented ALL action, including beneficial conviction decreases and defensive increases. At 0.65, the veto will trigger earlier and more aggressively on INDIVIDUAL position breaches, but the blanket veto should be reserved for truly extreme conditions. The influence_weight reduction from 1.5 to 1.3 reflects that the Risk Sentinel's excessive influence was drowning out legitimate thesis signals (defense_aerospace was the best theme but couldn't get a conviction increase). The sentiment_bias reduction from -0.8 to -0.6 makes the agent slightly less bearish — at -0.8, it was so pessimistic that it couldn't distinguish between 'genuinely dangerous' (SMR, COIN) and 'contaminated by association' (LMT, NOC in the same theme as PLTR). At -0.6, it should still be appropriately cautious but more willing to allow surgical conviction increases in clean positions within themes that have one bad apple.

**CRITICAL SYSTEM-LEVEL RECOMMENDATION (beyond parameter tuning):**
The most important change needed is NOT a parameter adjustment — it is a MECHANISM change. The system needs a forced exit capability when positions breach thresholds. Currently, conviction at floor 1 still holds positions, and the execution engine's drift rebalancing actually BUYS MORE of breached positions. This must be fixed: when a position breaches its max_drawdown threshold, it should be automatically queued for exit regardless of conviction level. Without this, no parameter tuning will solve the veto paralysis loop.

summary:
**ARC Solomon Weekly Deep Review — March 30 to April 3, 2026**

**REGIME:** BEAR locked at 99.8% confidence for 16+ days. VIX 24-31. Zero regime transition.

**RESULT:** 25 sessions, 27 consecutive vetoes, $99,437 equity (-0.56%). The portfolio survived the BEAR regime primarily due to defensive positioning (conviction 9) but was paralyzed by a systemic design flaw: the Risk Sentinel can veto but cannot force position exits, creating an infinite loop where breached positions (SMR, COIN, MSTR, PLTR) were never exited despite being flagged for 10-27 consecutive sessions.

**WHAT WORKED:**
1. Defensive floor at conviction 9 — JNJ (Sharpe 2.24), GLD (+44% 6m), KO (+10% YTD) provided essential ballast
2. Biotech conviction reduction (6→2) correctly tracked the pharma tariff escalation from threat to confirmed policy
3. Narrative Intelligence correctly identified 8+ genuine shifts with good timing
4. Energy_grid conviction reduction (3→2) was appropriate given SMR breach

**WHAT FAILED:**
1. **VETO PARALYSIS:** 27 consecutive vetoes with zero position exits. The system identified SMR, COIN, MSTR, PLTR as needing exit but had no mechanism to execute. This is the #1 systemic failure.
2. **EXECUTION ENGINE CONTRADICTION:** The drift rebalancer was BUYING more SMR, IONQ, RGTI shares while the Risk Sentinel demanded exit. The execution and risk layers are in direct conflict.
3. **THESIS ANALYST OVER-PROPOSAL:** The 0.7 bullish bias caused 8+ redundant defense_aerospace +1 proposals that were predictably vetoed, wasting analytical bandwidth.
4. **DEFENSE CONVICTION EROSION:** defense_aerospace went from 7→4 despite being the best-performing theme (+24% 3m momentum). The reductions were driven by PLTR contamination and Iran de-escalation fears that proved premature.

**PARAMETER CHANGES:**
- Macro Oracle: influence_weight 0.8→0.6 (reduce redundancy in stable regimes)
- Narrative Intel: influence_weight 1.0→1.2 (reward best-performing agent)
- Thesis Analyst: sentiment_bias 0.7→0.3 (reduce persistent bullish over-proposal in BEAR regimes)
- Risk Sentinel: veto_threshold 0.70→0.65, influence_weight 1.5→1.3, sentiment_bias -0.8→-0.6 (enable more surgical risk management, reduce blanket veto tendency)

**CRITICAL SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION:** Implement forced exit mechanism for positions breaching max_drawdown thresholds. Without this, parameter tuning alone cannot solve the veto paralysis loop that defined this week. The system needs the ability to EXIT positions, not just reduce conviction to a floor that still holds them.