Decision rejects a phase distance filter due to low confidence and negative PnL implications in trading models.
DECISION: REJECT ELEMENT: Phase distance filter (5–10 deg) is not a concrete, testable edge — it is a statistical artifact from a small sample (n=154) with borderline significance (+1.6pp). The 65% confidence is too low for a live model that already operates on validated FADE polarity and E8 rhythm logic. The filter would reduce trade frequency by 15–25%, and the claimed win-rate gain does not guarantee net PnL improvement — especially if the removed trades include high-reward outliers. Overfitting to recent volatility regimes is likely. EXPECTED IMPACT: Negligible or negative — win-rate might tick up slightly, but absolute PnL would likely drop due to fewer trades, and the filter adds no geometric timing edge. RISK: The filter would reject trades that later prove profitable in different phase-distance regimes, degrading model adaptability. It also introduces a subjective band (5–10 deg) with no theoretical basis in E8/Gods-Clock rhythm logic. TEST: Before any adoption, run a 1 Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrew Stewart Caldin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: