hjnormey/siloqy
Public Access
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 7 Pull Requests 2 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
9c068619e1fdae5fa5d75f8673817fca431b1716
siloqy/prod/docs/VIOLET_TODO_CRITICAL.md
Codex 9c068619e1 VIOLET: CRITICAL parity-disappointment TODO + OA partial spec PASS 3 
VIOLET_TODO_CRITICAL.md (prominent review queue):
- 🔴 CRITICAL #1: VIOLET↔BLUE parity report (PASS-2 Task 4, violet_parity_20260616_220412.md)
  is VERY DISAPPOINTING — pick-match 1.5%, no-pick 86%, same-asset 13.6%. KEY NUANCE: on the 43
  aligned rows sizing is near-identical (lev_err median 0.0) → the divergence is SELECTION /
  TIMING / comparison-ALIGNMENT, NOT the sizing math. Root-cause before any soak/V4. (Claude.)
- #2: OA PASS-1 + PASS-2 reported done, NOT yet reviewed — review queue listed.
- #3: future integration/E2E + the pass-vs-sprint nomenclature note (pass = sub-sprint
  work-package; V-stage = sprint/epic, matching existing usage).

VIOLET_PART_SPEC_OA_TODO_PASS3.md (lengthy, plan-derived, independent units with shared
interfaces — nothing invented): contracts_v3 (VenueTick/OpenPositionView/ExitDecision) +
VenuePriceFeedPort+BingX adapter, MechanicalExitGuard (armed TP/SL), sub-second SL/ADVSL floor
guard, event-sourced restore from trade_reconstruction, venue lead/lag slippage metric, cadence
per-action Q schedule + telemetry. Each ships + tests standalone; composition map + order given.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-17 09:01:49 +02:00

4.3 KiB
Raw Blame History

VIOLET — CRITICAL TODO / review queue (prominent)

Date: 2026-06-17. Single place for the must-not-forget VIOLET items. Review-later, not now.

🔴 CRITICAL #1 — VIOLET↔BLUE parity is VERY DISAPPOINTING (review + root-cause BEFORE any soak/V4)

Report: prod/VIOLET_dev/reports/violet_parity_20260616_220412.md (+ .json). Window 2026-06-14 20:15 → 2026-06-15 21:00. Produced by PASS-2 Task 4 (parity_report.py).

Headline:

  • Pick-match rate: 0.015 (1.5%) — VIOLET rows 2853, exact pick matches only 43.
  • Same-asset rate: 0.136 (13.6%); no-pick: 2465 / 2853 (86%).
  • BLUE rows 25941 (scan_eval 25278 + trade_events 663).

KEY NUANCE (where the review should START): on the 43 rows that DID align, sizing is near-identical — leverage abs error mean 0.016 / median 0.0 / max 0.135. So the V3.4 sizing math (boost/beta/mc_scale/ob/esof/compose) is NOT the problem; the divergence is in ASSET SELECTION / TIMING / the comparison's ALIGNMENT method. Candidate causes to investigate (do not assume — measure):

  1. Apples-to-oranges population. BLUE scan_eval (25278) is likely per-scan-per-asset evaluations, while VIOLET rows are actuated decisions — the report may be comparing different things. Verify the alignment/join semantics in parity_report.py first.
  2. Selection divergence. VIOLET's VioletAssetSelector (IRP) vs BLUE's live selection over the same scan stream — are they fed the same universe/lookback at the same scan index? The sizing-gap samples (TRX/ATOM/LTC/XLM SHORT with large notional_rel_err) suggest VIOLET fires on assets BLUE sized very differently or didn't pick.
  3. Cadence/actuation. VIOLET actuates at Q=scan; if its scan alignment or dedupe differs, picks land at different scans → counted as no-pick.
  4. The known structural items (OB single-shot before V3.4d; mc_scale; live-factor sourcing) — re-run parity AFTER V3.4d's persistent-OB launcher + the bit-identity fixes to see if the number moves.

Action: full review of parity_report.py + a root-cause pass; fix the alignment OR the selection divergence; re-run. This gates a meaningful DARK soak — a 1.5% pick-match makes the soak uninterpretable. Owner: Claude (me), later.

🟡 #2 — Review the OA-delegated PASS work (NOT yet reviewed)

The parallel agent reports these DONE; none reviewed for correctness / BLUE-compliance yet.

PASS 1 (VIOLET_PART_SPEC_OA_TODO.md):

  • 53bdd90 sizing parity-pin tests
  • 12b768b venue OB provider seam (venue_ob_provider.py)
  • bae9284 base-fraction sizing study (+ archived report)

PASS 2 (VIOLET_PART_SPEC_OA_TODO_PASS2.md):

  • parity_report.py (Task 4 — the report above) + test
  • tradeability.py (Task 6) + test
  • test_violet_v3_decision_latency_gate.py (Task 5) → report violet_v3_decision_latency_2026...
  • test_violet_replay_determinism_gate.py (Task 7) → report violet_replay_determinism_2026...

PASS 3: VIOLET_PART_SPEC_OA_TODO_PASS3.md (issued 2026-06-17) — items below; review when done.

Action: review each pass for correctness, BLUE-algo compliance, V-TYPES, no-shared-edits, real (non-vacuous) tests. Owner: Claude (me), later.

🟢 #3 — Integration / "sprint" consolidation (my later work)

Once the passes are reviewed, I will: (a) review ALL passes together, (b) integrate them (resolve interfaces, dedupe), (c) test them together, (d) plug into the operational system, (e) E2E test.

Nomenclature note (raised by operator): a "pass" here = a batch of self-contained tasks delegated to one agent — smaller than an Agile sprint (a time-boxed iteration, typ. 1-4 weeks, team-scoped, ending in a shippable increment, with planning/review/retro ceremonies). In this project's existing usage, "Sprint N" already maps to a V-stage bundle (Sprint 1 = V0+V1, Sprint 2 = V2, Sprint 3 = V3) — i.e. an epic/milestone. So the cleanest mapping: V-stage = sprint/epic; "pass" = a sub-sprint work-package / task-bundle within it. Renaming passes to "sprints" would over-claim scope; keep "pass"/"work-package", or call each an "increment". Decide at integration time.

Gating rule

The DARK soak (operator-held) and V4 are NOT meaningfully runnable until CRITICAL #1 is root-caused — a 1.5% pick-match means the shadow is not yet tracking BLUE's decisions.