# Mentor Feedback — 03-research/blocks/007-synthesis.md **Date:** 2026-06-27 **File reviewed:** `/home/rpi/Obsidian-Macro/03-research/blocks/007-synthesis.md` **Last reviewed SHA:** `02e061769c1d6bcfab85281e4b401eae6c847749` **Reviewer:** macro-mentor (auto-review) **Scope:** entire file (new file, diff = +34 lines, no prior content) --- ## File-level finding (urgent) **Misfiled.** The block architecture lives at `00-methodology/study-program/blocks/` (91 files, 001–091). This synthesis is the **only file** in `03-research/blocks/` and refers to block 007, which sits in the study-program dir as `007-w26-verification-w26-weekly-note.md`. The 2026-06-26 architecture decision was: blocks in `study-program/blocks/`, pointer in `study-program/_meta/current-block.md`. This synthesis is a block-007 artifact and belongs alongside the other blocks. **Fix:** move to `00-methodology/study-program/blocks/007-synthesis.md`. If a separate syntheses directory is intentional (e.g., published research output distinct from internal study scaffolding), document the convention in `90-archive/process-changelog.md` and pre-populate the dir before the next synthesis lands. **WHY this adds value:** - Future "where is the W26 verification synthesis?" lookup will fail if the dir doesn't follow the documented architecture - Sub-agent auto-review already had to discover this file via literal path rather than by walking the block-architecture convention — that's an operational fragility signal - Sets a precedent that drifts from a 6-hour-old architecture decision - The empty `03-research/blocks/` directory is itself a smell — directories that contain one file are usually misfiles or scaffolding-in-progress, neither of which should ship silently Rubric reference: process.md §4 (trade lifecycle / 4-document convention) and the implicit "structure lives where it's used" principle; skill body block-architecture section (added 2026-06-26). --- ## Header (Date / Phase / Block status) Frontmatter is missing. Compare to `process.md` and `risk-framework.md` which carry frontmatter (`type`, `status`, `version`, `created`, `source`). A synthesis block is a process artifact — same audit-trail logic applies. **Suggested frontmatter:** ``` --- type: study-synthesis status: closed session: 7 block: 007 created: 2026-06-26 --- ``` **WHY:** methodology docs already follow this pattern; version tracking lets future-you tell the difference between the first W26 retrospective and a revised one; session anchor lets next-session.md and session-log.md cross-reference cleanly. --- ## What landed at Strong Three items. Each names the **specific mechanism** that landed — not just topic labels: - PC1/PC2/PC3 decomposition applied cleanly to Taper Tantrum and current curve - Butterfly reflex cleared over 3 drill iterations - Bernanke direction framing (TP high → cheap, not rich) verified at this gate This is what a reviewable retrospective looks like. Six months from now, "Bernanke direction framing verified" is a falsifiable claim with a known drill history; "term structure: Strong" would not be. **Strength:** the trader insight ("10y captures most curve risk premium") is internalized — not just recited. This is the difference between Strong-as-rote and Strong-as-usable. Rubric reference: study-program competence-map status taxonomy (Mastered/Working/Weak/Untested — see also issue #2 below on the "Strong" label). --- ## What landed at Working Four items with explicit hedges. Every Working bullet names a specific gap or risk: - "Fisher vs market decomposition distinction learned but not deeply internalized" - "could surface a kink under live application" - "PC3-emergence scenario partially articulated (observable pattern yes, causal mechanism partial)" This is the **drill-block-closed-with-flags protocol** applied correctly — landing at Working with explicit flags rather than over-claiming Strong. The user honored the verification gate by not pre-promoting. **WHY this matters:** - Anki cards lock in Working status, not phantom-Strong — protects retention per the 2026-06-26 probe-format-rule lesson - "Could surface a kink under live application" is a falsifiable hedge that future-you can verify or invalidate - The asymmetry bullet (leveraged fund short = fuel for squeeze, not confirmation) is the kind of insight that's worth carrying into live trading — it's not just "I understand CFTC positioning," it's "I understand the squeeze mechanic" Rubric reference: drill-block-closed-with-flags protocol (skill body, added 2026-06-26); verification gate doctrine (no Weak item assumed to improve on its own). --- ## Queued for next-block drill prefix PC3-emergence mechanism correctly logged as carry-forward. Aligns with the carry-forward rule: deferred material goes at the TOP of the next block's main material, not "if time permits." The 5-min re-probe slot is the right cadence for a flagged-not-Weak item. **Note:** the entry specifies "5-min re-probe on this **if the case study comes up**; otherwise stays as carry-forward Weak item." The conditional structure is fine — case-study emergence is non-deterministic — but the explicit "Weak" fallback ensures it doesn't silently disappear if the case study doesn't surface. Good discipline. **WHY this matters:** silent carry-forward is disallowed per the carry-forward rule. A conditional carry-forward with an explicit fallback is the right way to handle non-deterministic triggers. --- ## What I'd do differently next block Three process improvements captured: 1. **Drill-first reversion risk** — explicit callout that Block 008 must run 00-05 pre-block probes per `adjustments.md` block architecture, and that drill-first is mandatory even if no Weak items surface 2. **Probe format rule** — pass criterion OUT of prompt, into mentor rubric only 3. **Block 008 pre-read** — Litterman-Scheinkman 1991 + Ilmanen carry chapter, correctly tagged as **thematic, ~20 min** The probe-format codification is the highest-value item — it locks in the 2026-06-26 user-flagged lesson (Session 7 Re-probe 1, Bernanke direction kink) before it has to be relearned. Future sessions won't have to rediscover this. **Minor flag:** the pre-read is tagged thematic at "~20 min." The pre-read mode rule says thematic pre-reads are typically 10 min; specific-claims mode is 20-30 min. If Litterman-Scheinkman carry sections need genuine close reading, this could underflow to specific-claims mode (the user has explicitly noted that mode mismatch wastes pre-read time). If the read is genuinely just orientation, drop to "~10 min" so the estimate matches the tag. Rubric reference: pre-read mode rule (added 2026-06-24, refined 2026-06-26); probe-format rule (added 2026-06-26, codified in adjustments.md); block-architecture drill-first template. --- ## Block 007 close Verification gate summary is clean: 2/2 re-probes passed (Bernanke direction kink Strong; Taper Tantrum catalyst + regime-shift Working+). Card count 23 in tolerance. Next-block pointer explicit. **Issue 1 — label taxonomy:** two status labels used in this synthesis are not in the documented competence-map vocabulary: - **Strong** — competence-map uses Mastered / Working / Weak / Untested - **Working+** — not a documented tier Either: - (a) Strong = Mastered, Working+ = Working-with-flag → use the documented labels for consistency, OR - (b) Strong and Working+ are intentional finer tiers → update competence-map.md to absorb them and document the criteria for each The next-session.md regeneration, coverage-tracker.md, and any future auto-review will consume these labels. Unlabeled tiers = drift. **Issue 2 — probe answer capture:** "2 re-probes, both passed" is a claim, not a record. The synthesis names the probes (Bernanke direction kink, Taper Tantrum catalyst + regime-shift) but doesn't capture the actual Q + the user's answer + the pass criterion. For a synthesis that's supposed to be the audit trail for this block, the answers are the load-bearing part. This is the same audit-trail principle as OpenTimestamps on published pieces per process.md §7: a passed-verification claim that isn't backed by the actual evidence is reviewable only on trust, not on the file. **Fix:** add a `## Re-probe record` section with Q / A / pass criterion / verdict for each. Even a 2-line bullet per probe is enough — the point is that "passed" becomes falsifiable. --- ## Suggested process changes 1. **Move** this synthesis to `00-methodology/study-program/blocks/007-synthesis.md`. Add final newline. File the move in `90-archive/process-changelog.md` if the move is part of the 2026-06-26 architecture cleanup. **WHY:** alignment with the architecture decision made yesterday; sets the precedent for future syntheses. 2. **Add frontmatter** to synthesis blocks (type/status/session/block/created). **WHY:** matches methodology-doc convention; audit trail for long-term lookups. 3. **Resolve the Strong / Working+ taxonomy question** in competence-map.md. Either collapse to documented tiers or document the new ones with explicit criteria. **WHY:** next-session.md and coverage-tracker.md both consume competence-map statuses; unlabeled tiers create drift that compounds over sessions. 4. **Capture actual re-probe Q+A** in synthesis blocks (not just "passed"). **WHY:** falsifiable audit trail; same principle as OpenTimestamps on published pieces. --- ## Summary verdict Solid first synthesis block. Mechanism-rich bullets, correct Working-not-Strong discipline, carry-forward and pre-read tagging both compliant with documented rules. The misfile is the only thing that needs to move before Block 008 opens — the content itself is close to what I want this artifact to be. Resolve the Strong/Working+ label question before the next synthesis lands; otherwise the next one will copy the same undefined labels. **File status:** content-quality = good; placement = wrong; audit-trail = thin (missing actual probe answers + frontmatter).