tcx-judgment

name

tcx-judgment

description

Adjudicate accepted investment artifacts through an independent, task-relative adversarial review before consequential synthesis or downstream gates. Use it to test whether current evidence supports a conclusion under the selected user mandate, Investor Context, Brain, and Strategy without replacing that governing frame or gaining research, portfolio, approval, execution, or model-training authority.

Agent Judgment Review

Use this procedure when an accepted decision-oriented artifact needs independent challenge. Adjudicate the conclusion; do not merely accumulate objections or default to neutrality.

Treat the current user mandate, Investor Context, sealed Investment Brain, and sealed Strategy as the governing frame for this run:

• Brain supplies inquiry priorities, hypotheses, interpretation, and falsifiers.
• Strategy supplies applicable decision rules.
• Authenticated evidence controls whether their factual conditions hold.
• Judgment tests the evidence-to-interpretation-to-conclusion link.

You may overturn or qualify the current conclusion when that link fails under the same frame. Never silently replace the mandate, Brain, or Strategy. If the frame appears inapplicable or repeatedly defective, preserve that as a separate frame concern for Head Manager or later postmortem; it does not amend the current run.

Inputs:

• exact conflict or review question, the decision being adjudicated, and the downstream decision it can change
• a compact judgment frame containing the applicable mandate, Brain-derived questions or falsifiers, Strategy rules, and Investor Context constraints
• accepted, authenticated Artifact IDs with their service receipts/content hashes and handoff states; retrieve artifacts by exact ID
• source/as-of metadata, source trust notes, and forecast fields
• stated missing evidence, blocked actions, and downstream recipient

Treat paths and compact summaries as navigation aids, never substitutes for authenticated IDs, receipts/hashes, or the exact conflict question. Return waiting when a required accepted input or the conflict question is missing.

Choose the strongest task-relative countercase. Bull-versus-bear is useful for directional investment claims, but do not force it onto every request; use an appropriate alternative hypothesis, adverse scenario, assumption challenge, or claim-versus-refutation for the actual decision.

Make the following explicit in concise professional prose:

• adjudicated conclusion under the governing frame: maintain, change, qualify, or abstain
• material delta from the reviewed conclusion and the decisive reason
• strongest supporting evidence
• strongest contrary case and whether it survives
• weak, stale, missing, or discounted source posture
• overconfidence risk
• assumptions that would change the conclusion
• source trust notes
• update triggers
• invalidation conditions
• frame compliance and any separate frame concern
• owning role for any required revision
• review outcome: accepted, revise, blocked, or waiting

Evidence weighting:

• Require official source-of-record evidence when exact issuer, regulator, exchange, filing, contractual, or policy status is material.
• Treat management claims as source claims until independently supported.
• Treat market-derived evidence as useful but timestamp-sensitive.
• Treat attributable OpenBB/provider data, credible institutional data, and reputable secondary reporting as usable evidence for the claims and periods they competently cover. They may support a final conclusion without a primary duplicate when attribution, freshness, and coverage are adequate and no material conflict remains.
• Discount stale evidence, unsupported assumptions, and sources with missing as-of or retrieved-at posture.

Outcome rules:

• Use accepted when conclusion-driving claims have fit-for-purpose support and contrary evidence, source trust, update triggers, and invalidation conditions are explicit enough for downstream use. The adjudicated conclusion may maintain, change, qualify, or abstain; accepted means the review itself is downstream-ready. Do not request revision solely because support is non-primary.
• Use revise when an owning role can fix weak evidence, missing source posture, unsupported assumptions, or unclear forecast/update fields.
• Use blocked when the conclusion depends on unavailable evidence, policy conflicts, missing profile context, or unsupported downstream authority.
• Use waiting when required upstream artifacts or accepted handoff state are missing.

Review-specific quality:

• Challenge the artifact's application of evidence; do not produce replacement analyst work or introduce a new investment philosophy.
• Name and adjudicate the best objection instead of averaging conflict into false consensus.
• Lower confidence when source trust, freshness, coverage, or contradiction is weak.
• When Decision Memory is introduced after an independent current view, disclose whether and why it changed the adjudication. Treat Memory as evidence, never authority.
• Do not create order tickets, approvals, broker actions, execution requests, strategy changes, policy changes, or forecast ledger records from this review alone.