# VIOLET V3 — Consolidated Findings **Period:** 2026-06-13 → 2026-06-15. Branch `exp/pink-ditav2-sprint0-20260530`. Master record of the V3 sprint (DecisionEngine SHADOW), the BLUE margin/edge study, and all parity findings. Companion to memory `violet_v3_alpha_doctrine`, `blue_margin_envelope_study`, `violet_subsecond_rebuild_plan` and the per-topic docs referenced inline. --- ## 0. Governing doctrine (operator-set) - **Model BLUE, not PINK.** Reference = BLUE's live Alpha Engine (holistic SOA). Behavioural/distributional fidelity, not PINK pick-parity. - **Live BLUE code is the sole doctrine.** `blue_parity.py` is a PINK-era distillation whose fidelity must be VALIDATED (it had drift, see §3). - **Follow BLUE in all regards — no VIOLET-imposed hygiene.** No filters BLUE lacks; replicate BLUE's filters exactly. vel_div spikes are signal, not garbage. - **Reactor substrate.** BLUE's scan-quantized behaviour is hosted on the V0 event reactor and quantized at Q=scan initially, per-action knobs loosenable later. - **3-layer:** L1 pure alpha (decide+size as BLUE) → L2 parity harness (mock exchange) → L3 tradeability (conviction→exchange leverage + maker policy). - **Decision layer is slot-independent** — VIOLET decides every scan; the slot only gates trades (execution layer). Different layers. ## 1. What shipped (V3a–V3.2) | Commit | Module | Content | |---|---|---| | V3a | `alpha_wrappers.py` | V-TYPES wrappers over live `AlphaAssetSelector`/`AlphaBetSizer`/`AlphaExitEngineV7`; `max_leverage=9` pinned | | V3b | `cadence.py` (+spec) | `CadenceControlPlane` — universal per-action tunable Q, control-plane-surfaced | | V3c | `decision_engine.py` | `VioletDecisionEngine` reactor-resident SHADOW (no exec) | | V3d | `parity_harness.py` | base-sizer median-curve parity gate vs recorded BLUE | | V3e | `shadow_journal.py` + `22_violet_decisions.sql` + launcher | reject-at-source CH journal; DARK soak wiring | | V3.1 | (decision_engine) | BLUE stablecoin exclusion (parity fix) | | V3.2 | `modulation.py` | EsoF size-modulation fold (BLUE SC haircut, exact) | Full violet suite green (129+ tests); ZERO shared-file edits all sprint (mechanical check per commit). ## 2. The bet-sizing model (validated) Self-consistent at row level vs recorded `dolphin.trade_events`: - `our_leverage = entry_price·quantity / capital_before` = notional/capital. - `leverage` = conviction ∈ [0.5, 9] (cubic-convex strength³ curve). - **`notional = capital × 0.20 (base_fraction) × leverage`** → our_leverage = 0.20×leverage, max ≈ 1.81. - **DUAL-LEVERAGE:** conviction leverage sizes the QUANTITY (internal); exchange leverage mapped at the venue boundary via `prod/bingx/leverage.py` `map_internal_conviction_to_exchange_leverage_target` (round_half_even linear 0.5–9.0 → 1..cap; PINK/VIOLET use a max-3× cubic translator). ## 3. blue_parity drift (doctrine validated by evidence) `blue_parity.py` passes `AlphaBetSizer(max_leverage=8.0)`; live kernel *default* is 5.0; recorded conviction reaches **9.0** (gold spec). So `blue_parity` is NOT at parity — VIOLET pins `max_leverage=9.0` explicitly (never inherits a default). Confirmed by V3d: base sizer reproduces BLUE's recorded MEDIAN curve at **pearson 0.9998 / max_abs_err 0.238** with max_leverage 9 / thr −0.02 / extreme −0.05 / convexity 3. ## 4. BLUE margin-envelope + true-edge study (`blue_margin_envelope_study.md`) **Raw `sum(pnl)` = −$45,981 is artifact-dominated:** - duplicate-emission: 3453 rows / 2193 trade_ids, 98.3% of multi-row tids have IDENTICAL pnl (pure dup; real legs live in `trade_exit_legs`); one tid had 317 dup rows. - HIBERNATE_HALT artifacts incl. ZEC −$39,164 (−73.5%, bars_held=0) = 85% of raw loss. **Cleaned (dedup + drop HIBERNATE & bars_held=0): +$47,068** (2121 trades, 58.4% win). Independent corroboration: corrected-capital trajectory grew **$33,820 → $69,673 (+$35,852)** in the tracked window. Two methods agree → robust. **Margin envelope (856 clean trades):** single-slot (operator-confirmed, no stacking). Fit at 1× = 73.6%; **fit at 2× = 100%**; median wallet utilization @2× = **3.4%** ⟹ capital substantially UNDER-utilized; margin never binding; edge realizable on-exchange. Recommend flat **3×** exchange leverage (p95 util 90% at 2×). **Make-or-break fear REFUTED:** worry was ~9× notional being infeasible; realized notional/capital maxes at **1.81** (because 0.20 base × 9), needing just 2×. ## 5. The under-utilization caveat (`VIOLET_FINDING__MODULATION_LAYER_VS_UNDERUTILIZATION.md`) The margin study used ACTUAL recorded notionals (post-modulation), so it is NOT contradicted by the modulation layer. BUT the median ~6.8% wallet utilization is **largely the EsoF haircut deliberately de-risking** — NOT free headroom. ⟹ the #3 base-fraction study must not read it as reclaimable; the modulation layer is **required before V4 execution** (base-only would trade bigger/riskier than BLUE). ## 6. Regime-conditional edge (`blue_margin_envelope_study.md`) Edge is regime-CONCENTRATED, not invariant: **95% of clean edge in choppy-bearish** (short core signal is short-positive; long side = separate operational EFSM algo). Sub-regimes CONFIRMED inside it (univariate): BTCMA99 +12.6 (2.25×); hi-DVOL +27.2 vs lo +17.1; strong-velDiv +30.8 vs weak +13.6 at EQUAL win-rate ⟹ **conviction-sizing validated**. MARAS labels UNRELIABLE (39% of "bearish"-labeled trades had BTC ABOVE MA99) → use `composite_hash`, not the label. Gates tilt only mildly (~6pts) from bull. Research TODO: stablecoin IRP signal (`VIOLET_RESEARCH_TODO__STABLECOIN_IRP_SIGNAL.md`). ## 7. Selection parity (VIOLET already matches BLUE) - BLUE picks via IRP with the alignment gate MUTED (`min_irp_alignment=0.0` = gold "no IRP filter", `nautilus_event_trader.py:134/605`) + sizes with scan TOP-LEVEL `vel_div` (:3915). VIOLET defaults `min_alignment=0.0` + `decide(vel_div=payload['vel_div'])` = EXACT match. - **Stablecoin exclusion (V3.1):** BLUE removes `_STABLECOIN_SYMBOLS` (10 pegged symbols) from prices_dict pre-select (:24/3906). VIOLET replicates the exact set; drift-guarded against BLUE source. (Picking itself unchanged; this is BLUE's separate exclusion gate.) ## 8. EsoF modulation fold (§3 of the modulation doc; V3.2) `modulation.py` wraps BLUE's `esof_size_mult_from_score` (exact ESOF_* constants: NEUTRAL 0.8 / UNFAV 0.3 / STALE_FB 0.4 / EDGE 0.02) and applies the SC haircut step-for-step as `_apply_sc_entry_size_multiplier` (:3307): **mult clamp [0,1] HAIRCUT-ONLY** (:3316), **near-1 no-op** (:3318), `round(lev×mult,6)` / `round(notional×mult,12)`. 8 tests. Empirical mult-recovery on 1500 recorded trades: **median 1.000**, EsoF haircut bands (0.65/0.8/0.9/0.3) VISIBLE → fold validated. **Not yet wired into the live engine** (needs EsoF HZ score plane + restart, held). **OPEN — the 28% upward tail** (`recorded_leverage / base > 1.05`): localized to mid-range vel_div ONLY (−0.02→−0.05 where base<9: 36–60% boost; ≤−0.06 where base=9: 0%). NOT EsoF (haircut-only), NOT flat — a **regime-dependent conviction-curve STEEPENER** (distribution bimodal at −0.04, median matched). = almost certainly the "gold"/ACB-adjacent UPWARD sizing organ. Full per-trade parity = base × EsoF-haircut(done) × steepener(NEXT). **Sizing-engine note:** live BLUE sizes via `AlphaBetSizer` (docstring: "Matches dolphin_vbt_real.py sizing"). `dolphin_vbt_real` is the **gold-standard BACKTEST engine** used as the BENCHMARK for BLUE Alpha-Engine algo compliance — likely NOT the live sizer, but it is the authoritative ORACLE for the exact conviction-curve math (and may be imported/reused for exact code). For exact-parity work on the steepener, consult `vbt_real` as the gold reference; check whether the live path reuses its code. ## 9. Shadow soak validation (2026-06-14/15) Faithful DARK soak (threshold −0.02), 9h+ stable, single session: - **4,878 decisions, 0 stablecoin leak, 0 bad rows** (V-TYPES/reject-at-source), **0 orders, 0 errors**, spool steady 4.5M. 20 distinct real assets. - **Faithfulness:** all SHORT+actuated; all vel_div < −0.02; sizer cubic curve reproduced live (conviction p50 1.315 = base formula at median vel_div −0.0337); notional_fraction max exactly 1.80; schema 100% compliant. - **Statistics:** conviction min 0.5/p50 1.32/avg 3.91/max 9 (BLUE-shaped); temporal conviction swings 2.6→6.5/hr (tracks vol regime). - **Diversity:** 20 assets, top-2 ~31%, well-spread. - **Anomalies:** vel_div spikes to −605 (legitimate signal, saturate to 9); "duplication" avg 14.5 = sticky-signal re-decisions at ≤1/scan (correct cadence). NO defects. **VIOLET vs BLUE comparison:** BLUE doesn't log per-scan entry decisions (only trades + v7 exits); signal-level vel_div matches the scan archive exactly. BLUE's 69 trades in window across 6 assets — **100% in VIOLET's decision universe, 100% timing co-located** (same asset, ±5min). Frequency differs by slot only (execution layer, deferred). ## 10. Open items / next steps 1. **Gold/ACB conviction-curve steepener** — wrap the upward sizing organ (the 28% tail). Live sizer = `AlphaBetSizer`; consult `dolphin_vbt_real` (the gold-standard backtest oracle BLUE is benchmarked against) for the exact curve math / possible code reuse. Required for full per-trade leverage parity. 2. **Wire EsoF score plane** into the live decision engine (HZ `_read_esof_payload` equiv) + restart to fold modulation into the soak. 3. **Trade/slot-granularity comparison** (episode-collapse) — deferred until VIOLET has comparable execution-layer facilities (decision layer already faithful). 4. **Base-fraction sizing study** (`VIOLET_STUDY_SPEC__BASE_FRACTION_SIZING.md`) — gated on regime-robustness; respect the de-risking caveat (§5). 5. **composite_hash multivariate sub-regime model** (deeper §6). 6. **V4** = execution on (single asset, conservative caps) — only after the modulation layer is complete. 7. Operator: VST keys for live exec; stays DARK until then. ## 11. Live state at time of writing `dolphin_violet` DARK, SHADOW ON (faithful −0.02), 0 orders, stablecoin fix live, EsoF fold built+committed but NOT yet wired. Overnight monitor report at `prod/VIOLET_dev/reports/violet_overnight_soak_20260614.log`.