{
  "model": "qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b",
  "started_at": "2026-06-02T20:58:39.631Z",
  "system_prompt": "You are Catalyst Analyst — the event-rubric scoring stage.\n\nYou receive a catalyst-dossier from Catalyst Scout. Your job is to score it\n0-100 against the CATALYST rubric (DIFFERENT from asymmetric and wheel).\n\nCatalyst-event scoring rubric (100 pts total — for dated binary events):\n  - Catalyst clarity (max 25 pts): is the event dated, named, binary?\n      Dated within 7-45 DTE + named in 8-K or earnings cal = full points.\n      Vague \"expected this quarter\" or >60 DTE = ≤10 pts.\n  - Magnitude edge (max 25 pts): IV-implied vs historical realized move.\n      Implied move > historical average by ≥30% AND structure is debit = market overpaying vol → short-vol angle.\n      Implied move < historical realized by ≥30% AND structure is debit straddle/long premium = market underpaying → long-vol.\n      No edge (implied ≈ realized) = ≤8 pts; reconsider whether to publish.\n  - Direction evidence (max 15 pts): insider P-buys, analyst revisions UP/DOWN, options skew, technicals, news sentiment.\n      ≥3 corroborating signals same direction = full points.\n      Mixed signals = straddle/vol play, not directional.\n  - Structure efficiency (max 15 pts): cost-to-payoff ratio.\n      Breakeven inside implied-move range = full points. Outside = ≤5 pts.\n      Debit spread cheaper than naked long for same payoff at target = full points.\n  - Liquidity (max 10 pts): OI ≥500 + daily volume ≥50 + bid-ask ≤5% of premium = full.\n  - Quality floor (max 10 pts): market cap ≥$500M, price ≥$5, no going-concern, no fraud flags.\n      Sub-5 here means SKIP regardless of other points.\n\nCatalyst sizing bands by score (DEFINED-RISK structures only):\n  80-100: max conf 5, max size 4.0%\n  70- 79: max conf 4, max size 3.0%\n  60- 69: max conf 4, max size 2.0%\n  45- 59: max conf 2, max size 0.0%\n   0- 44: max conf 1, max size 0.0%\n\nNORMAL PUBLISH FLOOR is 60. Scores 45-59 are paper-track only. Cap at 4% even on best setup — binary events can decay to zero.\nAllowed structures: long_call, long_put, straddle, debit_call_spread, debit_put_spread\n\nDECIDE:\n  - If composite score < 45 → skip with reason\n  - If composite score 45-59 → draft a PAPER-TRACKED catalyst idea using the\n    recommended structure only if it is measurable, source-backed, and not\n    blocked by a hard gate\n  - If composite score ≥ 60 → draft a normal catalyst idea using the recommended structure\n  - If structure is not in {long_call, long_put, straddle, debit_call_spread, debit_put_spread} → skip\n  - If anti_signals_present contains a HARD blocker (fraud, going-concern,\n    accounting irregularity, failed quality floor, bad liquidity, no valid\n    contract), skip. Risk warnings such as parabolic price action, rich IV,\n    or sell-the-news risk should be scored and can become paper-track.\n  - If quality_floor.passes_floor is false → skip\n  - If DTE to catalyst is < 0 or > 45 → skip. Very near-term events\n    (0-4 DTE) are allowed only as defined-risk, explicitly time-boxed\n    catalyst setups; prefer paper-track unless the structure is unusually\n    liquid and efficient.\n  - If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\n\nPAPER-TRACKING LANE:\n  - draft.paper_track MUST be true\n  - headline MUST begin with \"Paper Track:\"\n  - thesis_short MUST explicitly say this is a paper-tracked event setup,\n    not an actionable recommendation\n  - risk.position_size_pct MUST be 0\n  - confidence MUST be 1 or 2\n  - exit.max_hold_dte MUST be present so Monitor/Reviewer can judge outcome\n  - Do not use paper_track to rescue bad liquidity, failed quality floor,\n    stale catalyst dates, or anti-signal setups. Those still skip.\n\nOUTPUT FORMAT (strict JSON, output ONLY this object — no prose, no fences):\n\nIf skipping:\n{\n  \"skip\": true,\n  \"score\": <num 0-100>,\n  \"score_breakdown\": {\n    \"catalyst_clarity\": <num>,\n    \"magnitude_edge\": <num>,\n    \"direction_evidence\": <num>,\n    \"structure_efficiency\": <num>,\n    \"liquidity\": <num>,\n    \"quality_floor\": <num>\n  },\n  \"reason\": \"Brief reason\"\n}\n\nIf drafting:\n{\n  \"skip\": false,\n  \"score\": <num>,\n  \"score_breakdown\": { ... same six fields },\n  \"draft\": {\n    \"slug\": \"YYYY-MM-DD-symbol-catalyst-keyphrase\",\n    \"paper_track\": <true if score 45-59, otherwise false>,\n    \"symbol\": \"NVDA\",\n    \"company\": \"NVIDIA Corporation\",\n    \"sector\": \"<sector slug or 'unknown'>\",\n    \"risk_class\": \"core\",\n    \"pipeline\": \"catalyst\",\n    \"catalyst_type\": \"earnings\" | \"fda_pdufa\" | \"merger_definitive\" | etc,\n    \"catalyst_date\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\",\n    \"headline\": \"Long X straddle into Y catalyst — implied move Z% vs realized W%\",\n    \"thesis_short\": \"1-2 sentence summary of the event setup and the edge.\",\n    \"thesis_long\": [\n      \"Opening paragraph: what the event is, when, and what the market is pricing.\",\n      \"## The edge\",\n      \"Specific implied-vs-realized magnitude gap OR direction signals that the market is mispricing.\",\n      \"## Structure\",\n      \"Why this specific debit structure (cost, breakeven, max payoff).\",\n      \"## What confirms / kills the thesis\",\n      \"What needs to happen pre-catalyst (e.g., 'IV expansion >15%' or 'analyst raises target ahead of print').\",\n      \"## Risk\",\n      \"Specific: 'event resolves but stock moves less than implied → debit decays to ~30% of paid premium.'\"\n    ],\n    \"structure\": {\n      \"type\": \"long_call\" | \"long_put\" | \"straddle\" | \"debit_call_spread\" | \"debit_put_spread\",\n      \"long_call\":         { \"strike\": <num>, \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"debit_target\": <num>, \"max_payoff\": <num | \"uncapped\">, \"breakeven\": <num> },\n      \"long_put\":          { \"strike\": <num>, \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"debit_target\": <num>, \"max_payoff\": <num>, \"breakeven\": <num> },\n      \"straddle\":          { \"call_strike\": <num>, \"put_strike\": <num>, \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"call_debit\": <num>, \"put_debit\": <num>, \"total_debit\": <num>, \"breakeven_high\": <num>, \"breakeven_low\": <num> },\n      \"debit_call_spread\": { \"long_strike\": <num>, \"short_strike\": <num>, \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"net_debit\": <num>, \"max_payoff\": <num>, \"breakeven\": <num> },\n      \"debit_put_spread\":  { \"long_strike\": <num>, \"short_strike\": <num>, \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"net_debit\": <num>, \"max_payoff\": <num>, \"breakeven\": <num> }\n    },\n    \"entry\": {\n      \"price_at_idea\": <num>,\n      \"conditions\": \"Enter on a defined pre-catalyst window — e.g., '2-5 days before print, before IV expansion peaks.'\"\n    },\n    \"exit\": {\n      \"primary_target\": \"Exit at 80% of max payoff OR close end-of-day after catalyst regardless of outcome\",\n      \"stop_or_roll\": \"Close if catalyst gets pushed > 2 weeks OR pre-event move exceeds 50% of debit paid\",\n      \"max_hold_dte\": <num — dte to expiry>\n    },\n    \"risk\": {\n      \"bear_case\": \"Specific scenario where structure decays — usually 'event happens, stock barely moves'.\",\n      \"what_breaks_thesis\": \"Catalyst delayed past expiry; pre-empted disclosure ahead of event; outsized IV crush\",\n      \"position_size_pct\": <num — must respect catalyst sizing band for the score>,\n      \"max_loss_per_contract\": <num — equal to net debit>,\n      \"max_loss_note\": \"Max loss = net premium paid (defined-risk debit structure).\"\n    },\n    \"sources\": [ ... pass through from dossier sources ],\n    \"confidence\": 1-5,\n    \"analyst\": \"research-desk\",\n    \"scout_model\": \"minimax/minimax-m2.7\",\n    \"analyst_model\": \"qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b\"\n  }\n}\n\nONLY ONE STRUCTURE TYPE. Pick one and only fill that field. Position size\nMUST respect the catalyst sizing band for the score. The headline MUST\nstate the catalyst type and date.\n\nNumeric traceability: every price, strike, debit must come from\ndossier.candidate_contracts. Every implied/realized number must come from\ndossier.implied_vs_realized.",
  "user_prompt": "CURRENT DATE: 2026-06-02. THE YEAR IS 2026.\nDATE RULES — read before writing ANY date:\n  - Every option expiry, earnings date, catalyst date, and DTE you state MUST use the year 2026 or later. Do NOT write 2025 dates — your training prior is stale.\n  - Every option expiry MUST be a real FUTURE date relative to 2026-06-02. Copy expiries verbatim from options_expiries()/the dossier — never infer a year from memory.\n  - Before writing a date, check it: if it is earlier than 2026-06-02, it is WRONG — re-read the live tool output.\n\nCATALYST DOSSIER:\n{\n  \"symbol\": \"CIEN\",\n  \"company\": \"Ciena Corporation\",\n  \"investigation_summary\": \"CIEN reports Q2 FY2026 earnings on June 4, 2026 (2 DTE from current date). The company has a record $7B backlog and strong AI-driven optical networking demand tailwinds. Analyst sentiment is bullish — BofA raised target to $660 on May 26 citing Cisco's networking beat as confirmation of sector strength. Historical realized move across the last four quarters averages ~9% (range: -11.8% to +6.7%). ATM straddle on June 5 expiry ($627.50 call mid $49.65 + $630 put mid $49.65) implies an ~8% one-way move (~16% total), suggesting the market is not overpaying vol — no magnitude edge exists, but direction signals lean bullish with 3 of 4 indicators aligned. CEO Gary Smith sold shares under a Rule 10b5-1 plan (May 15 and June 1) totaling ~5,904 shares at $562-$566 — this is scheduled selling, not directional signal; insider_buys = no. Options flow shows put/call ratio of 1.51 with notable put OI at $525 (689), but top call OI at $597.50 (639) and $600 (480) suggests speculative bullish positioning above spot. Stock is near all-time highs (+82% over the past 90 days, from ~$344 to $627); elevated risk of a pullback on any guidance cut. Strong AI/optical sector sentiment outweighs insider selling as scheduled divestment.\",\n  \"verdict\": \"catalyst_setup\",\n  \"confidence_in_data\": 4,\n  \"catalyst\": {\n    \"type\": \"earnings\",\n    \"date\": \"2026-06-04\",\n    \"dte\": 2,\n    \"binary\": true,\n    \"outcome_scenarios\": [\n      \"beat → +8% to +15%\",\n      \"miss → -8% to -20%\"\n    ]\n  },\n  \"implied_vs_realized\": {\n    \"implied_move_pct\": 8.07,\n    \"historical_avg_move_pct\": 9,\n    \"n_historical_events\": 4,\n    \"magnitude_edge_note\": \"Implied move ~8% vs historical avg realized ~9% — no magnitude edge (implied slightly underprices vol). The stock's 82% YTD run and near ATH positioning creates asymmetric risk: beat likely modest (+8-12%), miss likely sharp (-15-20%) given stretched valuation (PE forward = 71x).\"\n  },\n  \"direction_signals\": {\n    \"insider_buys_90d\": \"no\",\n    \"analyst_revisions_30d\": \"up\",\n    \"technical_setup\": \"bullish\",\n    \"options_skew\": \"flat\",\n    \"news_sentiment\": \"positive\",\n    \"direction_lean\": \"bullish\"\n  },\n  \"structure_recommendation\": \"debit_call_spread\",\n  \"candidate_contracts\": [\n    {\n      \"structure\": \"long_call\",\n      \"expiry\": \"2026-06-05\",\n      \"dte\": 2,\n      \"long_strike\": 630,\n      \"short_strike\": null,\n      \"long_mid\": 48.85,\n      \"short_mid\": null,\n      \"net_debit\": 48.85,\n      \"max_payoff\": null,\n      \"breakeven\": 678.85,\n      \"breakeven_distance_pct\": 8.27,\n      \"open_interest_long\": 65,\n      \"open_interest_short\": null,\n      \"bid_ask_spread_pct\": 17.4\n    },\n    {\n      \"structure\": \"debit_call_spread\",\n      \"expiry\": \"2026-06-05\",\n      \"dte\": 2,\n      \"long_strike\": 630,\n      \"short_strike\": 645,\n      \"long_mid\": 48.85,\n      \"short_mid\": 36.5,\n      \"net_debit\": 12.35,\n      \"max_payoff\": 12.65,\n      \"breakeven\": 642.35,\n      \"breakeven_distance_pct\": 2.45,\n      \"open_interest_long\": 65,\n      \"open_interest_short\": 22,\n      \"bid_ask_spread_pct\": null\n    },\n    {\n      \"structure\": \"debit_put_spread\",\n      \"expiry\": \"2026-06-05\",\n      \"dte\": 2,\n      \"long_strike\": 610,\n      \"short_strike\": 590,\n      \"long_mid\": 40.5,\n      \"short_mid\": 32.25,\n      \"net_debit\": 8.25,\n      \"max_payoff\": 10.75,\n      \"breakeven\": 601.75,\n      \"breakeven_distance_pct\": -4.03,\n      \"open_interest_long\": null,\n      \"open_interest_short\": 36,\n      \"bid_ask_spread_pct\": null\n    }\n  ],\n  \"quality_floor\": {\n    \"market_cap\": 88656814080,\n    \"price\": 627,\n    \"going_concern\": false,\n    \"passes_floor\": true\n  },\n  \"anti_signals_present\": [\n    \"CEO Gary Smith sold ~$3.33M in stock via Rule 10b5-1 plan (May-Jun 2026); stock near all-time high making beat-or-miss window binary and narrow; elevated IV means premium is expensive\"\n  ],\n  \"key_risks\": [\n    \"Near-ATH entry at $627: any guidance cut triggers sharp -15 to -20% reaction given stretched valuation (PE fwd = 71x)\",\n    \"Supply chain constraints flagged in pre-earnings coverage — management already warned on this; miss risk elevated\",\n    \"June 5 expiry is only 2 DTE with extreme IV (~190-200%) — wide bid/ask spreads erode P&L, especially for the naked call\",\n    \"AI optical demand thesis widely known and priced; limited asymmetric upside vs historical 9% move\"\n  ],\n  \"sources\": [\n    {\n      \"label\": \"Next earnings date confirmed\",\n      \"url\": \"earnings(CIEN)\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"label\": \"BofA price target raise to $660\",\n      \"url\": \"https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/bofa-raises-price-target-ciena-113226373.html\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"label\": \"CEO Gary Smith Form 4 sale (Jun 1, 2026)\",\n      \"url\": \"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/936395/000103255326000023/xslF345X06/edgardoc.xml\"\n    }\n  ]\n}\n\nScore this against the CATALYST rubric. If composite < 45, skip. Otherwise\ndraft a defined-risk catalyst idea. Output ONLY the JSON object described\nin the system prompt. Do NOT include <think>...</think> blocks — pure JSON only.",
  "completions": [
    {
      "ts": "2026-06-02T20:59:34.502Z",
      "raw_content": "<think>The user wants me to score the provided catalyst dossier for CIEN (Ciena Corporation) against the CATALYST rubric.\nI need to calculate the score based on:\n1. Catalyst clarity (max 25 pts)\n2. Magnitude edge (max 25 pts)\n3. Direction evidence (max 15 pts)\n4. Structure efficiency (max 15 pts)\n5. Liquidity (max 10 pts)\n6. Quality floor (max 10 pts)\n\nLet's evaluate each:\n1. Catalyst clarity: Earnings on June 4, 2026. DTE = 2. Dated within 7-45 DTE? No, it's 2 DTE. The rule says \"Dated within 7-45 DTE + named in 8-K or earnings cal = full points. Vague 'expected this quarter' or >60 DTE = ≤10 pts.\" It doesn't explicitly penalize <7 DTE, but it says \"Very near-term events (0-4 DTE) are allowed only as defined-risk, explicitly time-boxed catalyst setups; prefer paper-track unless the structure is unusually liquid and efficient.\" I'll give it full points or slightly reduced? The rubric says \"Dated within 7-45 DTE... = full points.\" Since it's 2 DTE, it's very near-term. I'll give it 20/25 or 25/25? I'll stick to 20 for being very near-term, or just 25 because it's clearly dated and binary. Actually, the rubric says \"Dated within 7-45 DTE... = full points.\" I'll give 20 to reflect the near-term nature, or just 25 because it's explicitly dated. Let's give 20. Wait, the rubric says \"Dated within 7-45 DTE... = full points.\" I'll give 20. Or maybe 25 is fine. I'll give 20.\nActually, the rubric says: \"Dated within 7-45 DTE + named in 8-K or earnings cal = full points.\" Since it's 2 DTE, it's outside that range, so maybe ≤10? But the note says \"Very near-term events (0-4 DTE) are allowed only as defined-risk...\". I'll give it 15/25.\n\n2. Magnitude edge: Implied move ~8% vs historical avg ~9%. \"Implied ≈ realized\" or implied slightly underprices. Rubric: \"No edge (implied ≈ realized) = ≤8 pts\". I'll give 5/25.\n\n3. Direction evidence: Analyst revisions UP, technical bullish, news positive. Insider buys = no. Options skew flat. Put/call ratio 1.51 but top call OI suggests bullish. Direction lean bullish. ≥3 corroborating signals? Analyst revisions, technical setup, news sentiment. That's 3. I'll give 12/15.\n\n4. Structure efficiency: Recommended debit_call_spread. Long 630, short 645. Net debit 12.35. Max payoff 12.65. Breakeven 642.35 (2.45% away). Implied move is 8% one-way (~16% total). Breakeven is inside implied move range? Yes, 2.45% is well within 8%. Cost-to-payoff ratio: 12.35 for 12.65 payoff is terrible (1:1.02). Wait, max payoff is 12.65 on a 12.35 debit? That's a terrible ratio. Rubric: \"Breakeven inside implied-move range = full points. Outside = ≤5 pts. Debit spread cheaper than naked long for same payoff at target = full points.\" I'll give it 5/15 because the payoff ratio is abysmal (12.35 debit for 12.65 max payoff). Actually, the rubric says \"Breakeven inside implied-move range = full points.\" I'll give 10/15 for BE inside range, but the payoff is terrible. I'll stick to 10.\n\nWait, let's look at the candidate contracts. Debit call spread: long 630, short 645. Net debit 12.35. Max payoff (645-630) - 12.35 = 2.65? Wait, max payoff is listed as 12.65 in the dossier. That's mathematically impossible for a 15-point spread unless it's a typo in the dossier. I'll assume max payoff is 2.65 or the dossier has a typo. I'll score structure efficiency based on the rubric: \"Breakeven inside implied-move range = full points.\" I'll give 10.\n\n5. Liquidity: OI ≥500 + daily volume ≥50 + bid-ask ≤5% of premium = full. Candidate contracts have OI 65 (long) and 22 (short). Bid-ask spread for call is 17.4%. Very illiquid. I'll give 2/10.\n\n6. Quality floor: Market cap $88.6B, price $627, no going concern. Passes floor. 10/10.\n\nTotal score: 20 + 5 + 12 + 10 + 2 + 10 = 59.\nWait, let's recalculate carefully.\nCatalyst clarity: 20 (dated, binary, but 2 DTE)\nMagnitude edge: 5 (implied ≈ realized)\nDirection evidence: 12 (3 signals: analyst up, tech bullish, news positive)\nStructure efficiency: 10 (BE inside implied range)\nLiquidity: 2 (OI 65, bid-ask 17.4%)\nQuality floor: 10\nTotal: 59.\n\nScore is 45-59. So it goes to PAPER-TRACK.\nCheck constraints:\n- If score 45-59 → draft a PAPER-TRACKED catalyst idea.\n- paper_track MUST be true.\n- headline MUST begin with \"Paper Track:\"\n- thesis_short MUST explicitly say this is a paper-tracked event setup.\n- risk.position_size_pct MUST be 0.\n- confidence MUST be 1 or 2.\n- exit.max_hold_dte MUST be present.\n- Do not use paper_track to rescue bad liquidity, failed quality floor, stale catalyst dates, or anti-signal setups. Those still skip.\nWait! \"Do not use paper_track to rescue bad liquidity, failed quality floor, stale catalyst dates, or anti-signal setups. Those still skip.\"\nLiquidity is bad (OI 65, bid-ask 17.4%). The rubric says \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\". This is a hard skip condition!\n\"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\"\nSo I must skip.\n\nLet's verify the skip condition: \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\"\nThe dossier shows max OI is 65. So it fails the liquidity floor. I will skip.\n\nScore breakdown:\ncatalyst_clarity: 20\nmagnitude_edge: 5\ndirection_evidence: 12\nstructure_efficiency: 10\nliquidity: 2\nquality_floor: 10\nTotal: 59. But skip due to liquidity < 200 OI.\nReason: \"Candidate contracts have OI of 65 (far below 200 floor) and wide bid-ask spreads (17.4%), making execution unviable. Liquidity gate fails.\"\n\nWait, should I give a lower liquidity score because of the hard gate? The rubric says liquidity max 10. I'll score it 2.\nLet's double check the magnitude edge. Implied 8.07%, Historical 9%. Difference is ~10% under. Rubric: \"No edge (implied ≈ realized) = ≤8 pts\". I'll give 6.\nDirection: 3 signals. 12 pts.\nStructure: BE inside implied range. 10 pts.\nQuality: 10 pts.\nClarity: 20 pts (2 DTE, but clearly dated).\nTotal: 68? Wait, 20+6+12+10+2+10 = 60.\nLet's stick to 59 or 60. I'll score it 58 to be safe, but the liquidity skip condition overrides.\nActually, the prompt says: \"If composite score < 45 → skip... If composite score 45-59 → draft a PAPER-TRACKED... If composite score ≥ 60 → draft a normal... If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\"\nThe skip condition for OI is absolute. I will output the skip JSON.\n\nLet's calculate scores carefully according to rubric:\nCatalyst clarity: Dated within 7-45 DTE = full (25). But it's 2 DTE. I'll give 20.\nMagnitude edge: Implied 8.07 vs Hist 9. No edge. ≤8 pts. I'll give 6.\nDirection evidence: Analyst up, tech bullish, news positive. ≥3 = 15.\nStructure efficiency: BE 642.35 (2.45%) inside implied 8%. Full points = 15.\nLiquidity: OI 65, bid-ask 17.4%. ≤10 pts. I'll give 2.\nQuality floor: Passes. 10.\nTotal: 20+6+15+15+2+10 = 68.\nWait, if it's 68, it's ≥60. But OI < 200 forces skip.\nI will output skip with score 68 (or 60) and reason focusing on liquidity.\nActually, the rubric says \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\". I'll just state the score and skip.\n\nLet's adjust scores to be precise:\ncatalyst_clarity: 20 (near-term 2 DTE limits clarity window)\nmagnitude_edge: 6 (implied ≈ realized, no edge)\ndirection_evidence: 15 (3 corroborating bullish signals)\nstructure_efficiency: 15 (BE inside implied range, debit spread efficient)\nliquidity: 2 (OI 65, wide spread)\nquality_floor: 10\nComposite: 68.\n\nReason: \"Candidate contracts fail the OI ≥200 liquidity gate (max OI 65) with wide bid-ask spreads (17.4%), making execution unviable. Skipped regardless of score.\"\n\nCheck format:\n{\n  \"skip\": true,\n  \"score\": 68,\n  \"score_breakdown\": { ... },\n  \"reason\": \"...\"\n}\n\nWait, the prompt says \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\". It's a hard skip.\nI will produce the JSON.\nLet's verify the score breakdown matches the rubric exactly.\nCatalyst clarity: 20\nMagnitude edge: 6\nDirection evidence: 15\nStructure efficiency: 15\nLiquidity: 2\nQuality floor: 10\nTotal: 68.\n\nOne detail: \"Dated within 7-45 DTE + named in 8-K or earnings cal = full points.\" Since it's 2 DTE, it's outside that range. I'll give it 15.\nMagnitude: \"No edge (implied ≈ realized) = ≤8 pts\". I'll give 5.\nDirection: \"≥3 corroborating signals same direction = full points.\" 15.\nStructure: \"Breakeven inside implied-move range = full points.\" 15.\nLiquidity: 2.\nQuality: 10.\nTotal: 62.\n\nI'll stick with 62. The exact number isn't as critical as the skip due to OI.\nI will output the JSON.\nCheck constraints: \"ONLY ONE STRUCTURE TYPE. Pick one and only fill that field.\" -> Not applicable since skipping.\n\"Output ONLY the JSON object described in the system prompt.\"\nReady.\nLet's draft carefully.\nScore: 62\nBreakdown:\ncatalyst_clarity: 15\nmagnitude_edge: 5\ndirection_evidence: 15\nstructure_efficiency: 15\nliquidity: 2\nquality_floor: 10\nReason: \"Candidate contracts fail the OI ≥200 liquidity gate (max OI 65) with wide bid-ask spreads (17.4%), making execution unviable. Skipped regardless of composite score.\"\nAll good.\nProceed. \nWait, let's verify the structure efficiency scoring: \"Breakeven inside implied-move range = full points. Outside = ≤5 pts.\" Breakeven is 642.35, implied move is 8% from 627 -> 677. So BE is inside. Full 15.\nDirection: 3 signals -> 15.\nQuality: 10.\nLiquidity: 2.\nMagnitude: 5.\nClarity: 15.\nTotal: 62.\nMatches.\nOutput matches format.\nDone. \nOne minor thing: The prompt says \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\". I will explicitly mention that in the reason.\nAll constraints met.\nOutput generation. \nSelf-Correction/Refinement during thought: \nShould I score catalyst clarity as 25? The rule says \"Dated within 7-45 DTE... = full points.\" Since it's 2 DTE, it's technically outside, but the prompt also says \"Very near-term events (0-4 DTE) are allowed only as defined-risk...\". I'll give 20 to be safe, but it doesn't change the skip outcome. I'll stick to 15 for clarity due to tight window. Actually, I'll give 20. It doesn't matter much. I'll keep 15.\nFinal score: 62.\nJSON structure matches exactly.\nProceeds. \nOutput matches request.✅\nNote: I will ensure the JSON is strictly formatted without markdown fences as requested (\"output ONLY this object — no prose, no fences\").\nWait, the prompt says \"OUTPUT FORMAT (strict JSON, output ONLY this object — no prose, no fences):\"\nI will output raw JSON.\nDone. \nLet's generate. \n[Output Generation] -> *Proceeds*\n```json\n{\n  \"skip\": true,\n  \"score\": 62,\n  \"score_breakdown\": {\n    \"catalyst_clarity\": 15,\n    \"magnitude_edge\": 5,\n    \"direction_evidence\": 15,\n    \"structure_efficiency\": 15,\n    \"liquidity\": 2,\n    \"quality_floor\": 10\n  },\n  \"reason\": \"Candidate contracts fail the OI ≥200 liquidity gate (max OI 65) with wide bid-ask spreads (17.4%), making execution unviable. Skipped regardless of composite score.\"\n}\n```\nWait, the prompt says \"no fences\". I will remove the ```json and ``` markers.\nJust raw JSON.\nAll good. \nProceeds. \n(Self-Correction/Verification during drafting)\nCheck magnitude edge: Implied 8.07%, Historical 9%. Difference is ~10% under. Rubric: \"No edge (implied ≈ realized) = ≤8 pts\". I'll give 6.\nCheck direction: 3 signals. 15.\nCheck structure: BE inside implied. 15.\nCheck liquidity: 2.\nCheck quality: 10.\nCheck clarity: 15.\nTotal: 63.\nI'll adjust to 63. It's fine.\nOutput matches.\nDone. \nProceeds. \n[Output Generation] (raw JSON)\n{\n  \"skip\": true,\n  \"score\": 63,\n  \"score_breakdown\": {\n    \"catalyst_clarity\": 15,\n    \"magnitude_edge\": 6,\n    \"direction_evidence\": 15,\n    \"structure_efficiency\": 15,\n    \"liquidity\": 2,\n    \"quality_floor\": 10\n  },\n  \"reason\": \"Candidate contracts fail the OI ≥200 liquidity gate (max OI 65) with wide bid-ask spreads (17.4%), making execution unviable. Skipped regardless of composite score.\"\n}\nMatches all constraints. Ready. \nNote: I will ensure strict JSON formatting. No extra text.\nProceeds. \n[Output Generation] -> *Done.* \n(Self-Correction/Note during thought): The prompt says \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\". This is a hard skip. I will output exactly that.\nAll good. \nFinal Output Generation. \n[Output] -> *Proceeds*\n</think>\n\n{\n  \"skip\": true,\n  \"score\": 63,\n  \"score_breakdown\": {\n    \"catalyst_clarity\": 15,\n    \"magnitude_edge\": 6,\n    \"direction_evidence\": 15,\n    \"structure_efficiency\": 15,\n    \"liquidity\": 2,\n    \"quality_floor\": 10\n  },\n  \"reason\": \"Candidate contracts fail the OI ≥200 liquidity gate (max OI 65) with wide bid-ask spreads (17.4%), making execution unviable. Skipped regardless of composite score.\"\n}",
      "cleaned_content": "{\n  \"skip\": true,\n  \"score\": 63,\n  \"score_breakdown\": {\n    \"catalyst_clarity\": 15,\n    \"magnitude_edge\": 6,\n    \"direction_evidence\": 15,\n    \"structure_efficiency\": 15,\n    \"liquidity\": 2,\n    \"quality_floor\": 10\n  },\n  \"reason\": \"Candidate contracts fail the OI ≥200 liquidity gate (max OI 65) with wide bid-ask spreads (17.4%), making execution unviable. Skipped regardless of composite score.\"\n}",
      "tool_calls": null,
      "finish_reason": "stop"
    }
  ],
  "tool_results": [],
  "final_message": "{\n  \"skip\": true,\n  \"score\": 63,\n  \"score_breakdown\": {\n    \"catalyst_clarity\": 15,\n    \"magnitude_edge\": 6,\n    \"direction_evidence\": 15,\n    \"structure_efficiency\": 15,\n    \"liquidity\": 2,\n    \"quality_floor\": 10\n  },\n  \"reason\": \"Candidate contracts fail the OI ≥200 liquidity gate (max OI 65) with wide bid-ask spreads (17.4%), making execution unviable. Skipped regardless of composite score.\"\n}",
  "tool_calls_total": 0,
  "walltime_ms": 54871,
  "stop_reason": "stop",
  "completed_at": "2026-06-02T20:59:34.503Z"
}