- found this run the book moved during the session and the runbook no longer describes it.
Two changes since the 09:14 read. The 4x GOOG Jan21'28 260 CALL position went to zero, and an 8x GOOGL Sep17'27 300/440 call spread was opened - 8 long 300 calls at an average of $75.56 against 8 short 440 calls at $22.19, both marked within a dollar of that and showing today as their first day of P&L. The runbook's WHAT THE BOOK IS section still lists '4x Jan-28 260C' and knows nothing of any Sep-2027 expiry. The runbook is a doc Gabriel approved and this run does not edit it; the divergence is the finding. The 90%-of-width row in Part 2 does apply to the new spread on its own terms, and it was swept: 38.2% of a $140 width, nowhere near.
- found this run the trade lands inside the net_cash amber action, and the test that would judge it is the one rail that has never been measured.
net_cash / NLV is amber at -0.071. The IPS writes the amber action verbatim as 'no new leverage, no new delta in the top two names. Re-run the stress scenario within seven days.' Alphabet is the top name and a long call spread was opened in it today, while a long call position in the same name was closed. Whether net Alphabet delta rose or fell is exactly what top2_name_delta_ratio would answer, and that rail has been unmeasured since signing because summary.json carries no per-leg deltas. No verdict is offered here and none can be computed from this run's inputs. Flagging the collision only.
- found this run the two Alphabet tickers now disagree about which trigger is nearest.
On GOOGL $338.73, tranche-3 confirmation at $360 is 6.28% above and tranche-2 weakness at $317 is 6.42% below, so t3 is nearest by 0.14 of a point. On GOOG $335.10, the quote rails.py actually reads, t2 is 5.40% below against t3 at 7.43% above, so t2 is nearest by more than two points. This morning both tickers agreed t2 was nearest; six hours later they do not. The gap between the two quotes is the persistent share-class spread, not a data error, but it is now large enough relative to the distance to the triggers that the answer to 'which line is closest' depends on which ticker is asked. Both readings appear in the watch table above rather than one being picked.
- will happen again the gross_leverage rail has never measured the policy row it cites.
rails.json maps gross_leverage to gross_position_value / net_liquidation and tests it against thresholds the IPS wrote for total delta notional / NLV. rails.json carries its own note saying so: '1.57 at signing on gross; true delta leverage ~1.0x'. Today makes the mismatch visible: opening a defined-risk call spread pushed the rail from 1.709 to 1.733 because the short leg's absolute value is added rather than netted, even though a spread caps risk relative to the naked long leg it partly replaced. The rail's red has never been a statement about the policy metric.
- will happen again rails.py reads GOOGL price levels off the GOOG quote.
Every spot rail in the googl_put_campaign program is written against GOOGL prices in the playbook and the runbook, but the script evaluates them on whichever underlying it resolves first, which is GOOG. On most days the share-class spread is too small to change any verdict. See the new finding above for the day it changed which trigger is reported as nearest.
- will happen again the cron has no trading-day guard.
'35 6,12 * * *' fires seven days a week. Eight weekend runs so far in this series, none of which could carry new information by construction.