Why we follow rules instead of predictions
Predictions feel useful and rarely are. A short note on why our process is built on fixed rules, and what that does and does not promise.
[PLACEHOLDER OUTLINE: replace this post with the final text.]
The problem with predictions
[DRAFT: Most market commentary is a forecast dressed up as analysis. Explain, in two or three short paragraphs, why forecasts are hard to act on and harder to check afterwards.]
What a rule gives you
A rule is written down before the decision. That gives you three things a prediction can't:
- Consistency. The same inputs produce the same output, every time.
- A record. You can look back and see exactly why a state changed.
- Calm. When markets get loud, the rule doesn't change with them.
[DRAFT: one paragraph tying these to how the signal is built.]
What a rule does not give you
Rules can be wrong. A system that has worked in the past can stop working. A rule is a way to make decisions consistently, not a promise about outcomes.
[DRAFT: one paragraph on how we review rules and what we publish when a rule changes.]
How this shows up in the signal
[DRAFT: walk through one example (clearly labeled as an example) of a state changing because a rule was triggered.]
Key takeaways
- [TAKEAWAY 1]
- [TAKEAWAY 2]
- [TAKEAWAY 3]