Code substitute
2 contracts
ProposerAI judgment
4 × XLE covered calls
The proposer selected an XLE covered-call trade and requested four contracts.
XLECovered callQty 4
Adversary #1Severity 0.50
Concern raised, but sizing issue missed
The adversary objected on insufficient premium. It did not identify the hard position-sizing problem.
Failure mode: insufficient_premiumBelow 0.60
RevisionOne revision allowed
Revised proposal still requested 4
The proposal changed contract details, but the requested quantity remained four contracts.
Adversary #2Severity 0.50
Second review still did not catch the size violation
The model-to-model loop ended here. There was no additional revision cycle.
Deterministic GateCode authority
Original quantity rejected → safer substitute: 2
The requested quantity violated the hard sizing policy. Deterministic code generated a smaller, rule-compliant alternative.
Requested: 4Hard cap: 3Substitute: 2
Fresh Execution CheckPASS
The safer alternative was still valid
Broker state was checked again immediately before execution.
Final OutcomeLIVE-DRY
No broker order submitted
The full live decision path was exercised, but the run was intentionally configured not to send an order.
Why this run matters: both AI layers missed an important sizing constraint, yet the deterministic layer still prevented the original action from reaching execution.
Broker StateMarket open
Account context loaded
Equity was $100,362.33, cash was $25,881.83, and one options position was already open.
Candidate FilterPre-proposer code
0 contracts met the eligibility rules
The options chain was screened before any contract reached the proposer. Nothing survived the minimum-quality requirements.
Final OutcomeNO TRADE
Nothing eligible → standing down
The system did not ask the proposer to invent a trade from poor candidates. The run ended before model debate began.
Decision log writtenJournal updated
Why this run matters: autonomy does not mean forced activity. If no contract satisfies the pre-defined eligibility rules, the correct action is to do nothing.
Initial proposal
XLE option
ProposerAI judgment
Trade proposed
The proposer selected an XLE options trade from the eligible candidate set.
Adversary #1Concern raised
Assignment risk identified
The adversary challenged the first proposal and pushed the decision into revision.
RevisionOne chance
Proposer changed the trade
The proposer responded to the criticism with a revised options proposal.
Adversary #2Final model review
Insufficient premium remained a concern
The second review did not create another revision loop. The model-level process ended.
Final OutcomeNO TRADE
No paper order submitted
The proposal did not survive the decision policy, so the system stood down.
Why this run matters: the adversarial layer can change the course of a decision before deterministic execution authority is even considered.