{ "model": "qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b", "started_at": "2026-06-05T17:08:55.622Z", "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\": ,\n \"score_breakdown\": {\n \"catalyst_clarity\": ,\n \"magnitude_edge\": ,\n \"direction_evidence\": ,\n \"structure_efficiency\": ,\n \"liquidity\": ,\n \"quality_floor\": \n },\n \"reason\": \"Brief reason\"\n}\n\nIf drafting:\n{\n \"skip\": false,\n \"score\": ,\n \"score_breakdown\": { ... same six fields },\n \"draft\": {\n \"slug\": \"YYYY-MM-DD-symbol-catalyst-keyphrase\",\n \"paper_track\": ,\n \"symbol\": \"NVDA\",\n \"company\": \"NVIDIA Corporation\",\n \"sector\": \"\",\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\": , \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"debit_target\": , \"max_payoff\": , \"breakeven\": },\n \"long_put\": { \"strike\": , \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"debit_target\": , \"max_payoff\": , \"breakeven\": },\n \"straddle\": { \"call_strike\": , \"put_strike\": , \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"call_debit\": , \"put_debit\": , \"total_debit\": , \"breakeven_high\": , \"breakeven_low\": },\n \"debit_call_spread\": { \"long_strike\": , \"short_strike\": , \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"net_debit\": , \"max_payoff\": , \"breakeven\": },\n \"debit_put_spread\": { \"long_strike\": , \"short_strike\": , \"expiry\": \"YYYY-MM-DD\", \"net_debit\": , \"max_payoff\": , \"breakeven\": }\n },\n \"entry\": {\n \"price_at_idea\": ,\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\": \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\": ,\n \"max_loss_per_contract\": ,\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: 2026-06-05. 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 2026-06-05. 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 2026-06-05, it is WRONG — re-read the live tool output.\n\nCATALYST DOSSIER:\n{\n \"symbol\": \"UEC\",\n \"company\": \"Uranium Energy Corp.\",\n \"investigation_summary\": \"UEC reports Q3 FY2026 earnings on June 9, 2026 (pre-market). The company is a $6.28B uranium miner with strong cash ($486M) and minimal debt ($1.86M). Earnings history shows consistent losses but the stock has been buoyed by the nuclear/AI power demand narrative — it ran to ~$16 in May before selling off sharply (-9% on June 5) back to $12.84, now below both its 50-day ($14.13) and 200-day MA. The options market prices a ~10-11% implied move via the ATM straddle (June 13 strike), while historical realized moves across four recent quarters average only 3-4%. This is a classic vol-rich scenario where the market overpays for optionality relative to actual earnings dislocation — favoring premium-selling or defined-risk structures that profit from vol crush, not directional outright buys. Bullish catalysts include analyst upgrades (9 analysts at $19 target vs $12.85 spot), strong nuclear sector momentum, and insider purchases in late 2025.\",\n \"verdict\": \"catalyst_setup\",\n \"confidence_in_data\": 4,\n \"catalyst\": {\n \"type\": \"earnings\",\n \"date\": \"2026-06-09\",\n \"dte\": 4,\n \"binary\": true,\n \"outcome_scenarios\": [\n \"beat/macro tailwind → +8-15% on uranium sector enthusiasm\",\n \"in-line/soft revenue → -5-10% given large short float (13.79%)\"\n ]\n },\n \"implied_vs_realized\": {\n \"implied_move_pct\": 10.67,\n \"historical_avg_move_pct\": 3.78,\n \"n_historical_events\": 4,\n \"magnitude_edge_note\": \"Implied ~10-11% vs realized avg ~3.8% = market overpaying vol by ~2.8x. Strong edge for structures that SELL premium (straddles, credit spreads) rather than buy it.\"\n },\n \"direction_signals\": {\n \"insider_buys_90d\": \"unknown\",\n \"analyst_revisions_30d\": \"up\",\n \"technical_setup\": \"neutral\",\n \"options_skew\": \"call_skew\",\n \"news_sentiment\": \"positive\",\n \"direction_lean\": \"bullish\"\n },\n \"structure_recommendation\": \"straddle\",\n \"candidate_contracts\": [\n {\n \"structure\": \"long_straddle\",\n \"expiry\": \"2026-06-12\",\n \"dte\": 7,\n \"long_strike\": null,\n \"short_strike\": null,\n \"long_mid\": null,\n \"short_mid\": null,\n \"net_debit\": 1.37,\n \"max_payoff\": \"unlimited (straddle)\",\n \"breakeven\": null,\n \"breakeven_distance_pct\": null,\n \"open_interest_long\": 117,\n \"open_interest_short\": null,\n \"bid_ask_spread_pct\": 0.07,\n \"legs_note\": \"June12 $13 call mid $0.58 + June12 $13 put mid $0.79 = $1.37 debit; breakevens at $11.63 and $14.38\"\n },\n {\n \"structure\": \"debit_put_spread\",\n \"expiry\": \"2026-06-12\",\n \"dte\": 7,\n \"long_strike\": null,\n \"short_strike\": null,\n \"long_mid\": null,\n \"short_mid\": null,\n \"net_debit\": 0.32,\n \"max_payoff\": 1,\n \"breakeven\": null,\n \"breakeven_distance_pct\": null,\n \"open_interest_long\": 21,\n \"open_interest_short\": 403,\n \"bid_ask_spread_pct\": 0.14,\n \"legs_note\": \"Long June12 $12 put (mid $0.33) + Short June12 $11 put (mid $0.18) = $0.32 debit; max gain $1.00 if UEC <$11 at expiry\"\n }\n ],\n \"quality_floor\": {\n \"market_cap\": 6284630000,\n \"price\": 12.82,\n \"going_concern\": false,\n \"passes_floor\": true\n },\n \"anti_signals_present\": [\n \"Company is deeply unprofitable (EPS -$0.04 to -$0.07 per quarter historically)\",\n \"Negative operating cash flow (-$116M TTM), no revenue visibility\",\n \"Stock down sharply from $16 highs in weeks before earnings — technical damage\",\n \"Large short interest (13.79% of float) could amplify downside on any miss\"\n ],\n \"key_risks\": [\n \"Vol crush after June 9 event will deflate both calls and puts; straddle holder needs stock to move >$1.37 in either direction just to break even\",\n \"UEC has missed estimates in each of the last four quarters — loss-making micro-cap uranium explorer highly sensitive to spot U3O8 price, not operational execution\",\n \"Stock trading below both 50DMA and 200DMA entering event = deteriorating technical backdrop that could amplify negative reaction to any guidance disappointment\",\n \"June 12 expiry gives only ~7 DTE after the catalyst; theta decay on premium positions accelerates sharply here\"\n ],\n \"sources\": [\n {\n \"label\": \"Earnings date confirmed\",\n \"url\": \"https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/uranium-energy-corp-provides-date-110000799.html\"\n },\n {\n \"label\": \"UEC Q3 earnings preview - higher operating costs may widen losses\",\n \"url\": \"https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/uec-gears-report-q3-earnings-160600126.html\"\n },\n {\n \"label\": \"AI power demand driving nuclear uranium revival narrative into event\",\n \"url\": \"https://www.marketbeat.com/originals/ais-power-crunch-is-putting-uranium-energy-back-on-investors-watchlists/\"\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 ... blocks — pure JSON only.", "completions": [ { "ts": "2026-06-05T17:09:59.519Z", "raw_content": "The user wants me to score a catalyst dossier for UEC (Uranium Energy Corp.) against the CATALYST rubric and output a JSON object.\nLet's break down the scoring:\n\n1. Catalyst Clarity (max 25 pts):\n - Event: Q3 FY2026 earnings on June 9, 2026.\n - DTE: 4 days from current date (June 5, 2026).\n - Rule: \"Dated within 7-45 DTE + named in 8-K or earnings cal = full points. Vague 'expected this quarter' or >60 DTE = ≤10 pts.\"\n - Wait, the rule says 7-45 DTE for full points. This is 4 DTE. The prompt 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.\"\n - I'll score it slightly lower for being very near-term, maybe 15/25 or 18/25. Let's stick to 15 for being 4 DTE, but it's clearly dated and named. I'll give 18.\n\n2. Magnitude Edge (max 25 pts):\n - Implied move: 10.67%\n - Historical avg: 3.78%\n - Implied > historical by ≥30%? Yes, ~2.8x.\n - Rule: \"Implied move > historical average by ≥30% AND structure is debit = market overpaying vol → short-vol angle.\"\n - The dossier recommends a straddle (long vol) or debit put spread. But the edge is clearly for short vol (selling premium). Buying a straddle into this is fighting the edge.\n - Since the recommended structure is a debit (long straddle or debit put spread), but the edge says \"market overpaying vol → short-vol angle\", buying debit here is fighting the magnitude edge.\n - I'll score magnitude edge low for the *recommended* structure, or just score the edge itself. The rubric says: \"Implied move > historical average by ≥30% AND structure is debit = market overpaying vol → short-vol angle.\" It doesn't penalize the score for the edge existing, but the edge implies a short-vol setup. However, the rubric asks to score the edge itself. I'll give it 10/25 because the edge points to selling vol, but the dossier recommends buying a debit straddle, which is contradictory. Actually, the rubric says \"No edge (implied ≈ realized) = ≤8 pts\". Here there is a strong edge, but it's for the opposite side. I'll give it 12/25. Wait, the rubric says \"magnitude edge\" is just about the IV vs realized gap. I'll give it 15/25.\n\n3. Direction Evidence (max 15 pts):\n - Insider buys: unknown\n - Analyst revisions: up\n - Technicals: neutral / below MAs\n - Options skew: call skew\n - News sentiment: positive\n - Direction lean: bullish\n - Only 2-3 corroborating signals. Mixed technicals. I'll give 8/15.\n\n4. Structure Efficiency (max 15 pts):\n - Recommended: long_straddle or debit_put_spread.\n - Breakeven for straddle: $11.63 and $14.38. Implied move is ~10.67% of $12.82 = ~$1.37. So breakevens are exactly at the implied move range. That's good for a straddle.\n - But cost is $1.37 debit. Max payoff is unlimited.\n - Rule: \"Breakeven inside implied-move range = full points.\"\n - I'll give 10/15.\n\n5. Liquidity (max 10 pts):\n - OI for straddle legs: 117 (call) + ? (put). The dossier says \"open_interest_long\": 117. Usually needs ≥500 for full points.\n - Bid-ask spread: 7% (0.07). Rule: \"bid-ask ≤5% of premium = full.\"\n - So liquidity is poor. I'll give 4/10.\n\n6. Quality Floor (max 10 pts):\n - Market cap: $6.28B. Price: $12.82. No going concern. Passes floor.\n - I'll give 10/10.\n\nTotal Score: 18 + 15 + 8 + 10 + 4 + 10 = 65.\nWait, let's re-evaluate Magnitude Edge. The rubric says: \"Implied move > historical average by ≥30% AND structure is debit = market overpaying vol → short-vol angle.\" This implies that if you are buying a debit, you are fighting the edge. But the score is for the *edge itself*. I'll keep it at 12.\nActually, the prompt says: \"Magnitude edge (max 25 pts): IV-implied vs historical realized move. Implied move > historical average by ≥30% AND structure is debit = market overpaying vol → short-vol angle.\"\nI'll score it 10/25 because the recommended structure (long straddle) is diametrically opposed to the magnitude edge, making the setup poor for the proposed structure. Or I'll just score the edge as 15. Let's stick to 15.\n\nLet's check the rules:\n- DTE to catalyst is 4. Rule: \"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.\"\n- Liquidity is poor (OI 117, B/A 7%). So it should be paper-track.\n- Score 65 falls in 60-69 band. Max conf 4, max size 2.0%.\n- But since it's 4 DTE and illiquid, I will draft it as PAPER-TRACKED.\n- Wait, the prompt says: \"If composite score ≥ 60 → draft a normal catalyst idea using the recommended structure\". But also \"If DTE to catalyst is < 0 or > 45 → skip. 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.\"\n- I will draft it as paper-track because of the DTE and liquidity, but the score is ≥60. I'll note paper_track: true.\n- Actually, the scoring bands say 60-69: max conf 4, max size 2.0%.\n- I will draft it.\n\nLet's calculate the score carefully:\nCatalyst Clarity: Event is dated (June 9, 2026), binary (earnings), but DTE is 4. The rubric says \"Dated within 7-45 DTE + named... = full points.\" Since it's 4 DTE, it's outside the optimal window. I'll give 15/25.\nMagnitude Edge: Implied 10.67% vs Realized 3.78%. Edge is strong but points to short vol. The dossier recommends a long straddle. This is a mismatch. I'll give 10/25.\nDirection Evidence: Analyst revisions up, options call skew, news positive. Technicals neutral/negative. Mixed. I'll give 7/15.\nStructure Efficiency: Straddle breakevens at ±10.7%, cost $1.37. Breakeven inside implied range = full points. But OI is low. I'll give 10/15.\nLiquidity: OI 117 (<500), B/A 7% (>5%). I'll give 3/10.\nQuality Floor: Passes. 10/10.\nTotal: 15+10+7+10+3+10 = 55.\nScore 55 falls in 45-59 band. Paper-track only. Max conf 2, size 0.0%.\nThis aligns with the DTE/liquidity constraints.\n\nLet's draft it as paper-track.\nHeadline must begin with \"Paper Track:\".\nThesis must say it's paper-tracked.\nRisk position_size_pct must be 0.\nConfidence must be 1 or 2.\nExit max_hold_dte must be present.\nStructure: long_straddle (as recommended, though inefficient, I'll stick to it or switch to debit_put_spread for efficiency? The prompt says \"using the recommended structure only if it is measurable...\". I'll use the long_straddle as recommended, or maybe the debit_put_spread is better? The dossier recommends \"straddle\". I'll stick to long_straddle but note the paper track. Actually, I'll use the long_straddle as requested, but frame it carefully. Or I'll use the debit_put_spread for better efficiency? The prompt says \"using the recommended structure\". I'll use long_straddle.\n\nWait, the rubric says \"If composite score 45-59 → draft a PAPER-TRACKED catalyst idea using the recommended structure only if it is measurable, source-backed, and not blocked by a hard gate\".\nI will draft it.\n\nLet's construct the JSON carefully.\nScore breakdown:\ncatalyst_clarity: 15\nmagnitude_edge: 10\ndirection_evidence: 7\nstructure_efficiency: 10\nliquidity: 3\nquality_floor: 10\nTotal: 55\n\nDraft fields:\nslug: \"2026-06-05-UEC-earnings-straddle-paper\"\npaper_track: true\nsymbol: \"UEC\"\ncompany: \"Uranium Energy Corp.\"\nsector: \"energy\"\nrisk_class: \"core\"\npipeline: \"catalyst\"\ncatalyst_type: \"earnings\"\ncatalyst_date: \"2026-06-09\"\nheadline: \"Paper Track: Long UEC straddle into Q3 FY2026 earnings on June 9 — implied move 10.7% vs realized 3.8%\"\nthesis_short: \"Paper-tracked event setup: buying a long straddle into UEC's Q3 earnings on June 9 to capture a potential >10% move, acknowledging the market is pricing ~2.8x historical realized volatility and liquidity is thin.\"\nthesis_long: [\n \"UEC reports Q3 FY2026 earnings pre-market on June 9, 2026. The stock is trading at $12.82, below its 50-day and 200-day MAs, with a recent pullback from $16. The options market prices an ~10.7% implied move via the June 12 straddle, while historical quarterly realized moves average only ~3.8%.\",\n \"## The edge\",\n \"The market is overpricing optionality (implied move is ~2.8x historical average), which typically favors premium selling. However, the bullish analyst revisions, call skew, and positive sector momentum around nuclear/AI demand provide a directional tailwind that justifies a paper-tracked long volatility play if a surprise beat occurs.\",\n \"## Structure\",\n \"Long straddle using June 12 $13 calls ($0.58) and $13 puts ($0.79) for a $1.37 net debit. Breakevens at $11.63 and $14.38. This structure captures a binary move in either direction, though it requires the stock to move >10.7% to overcome the rich premium.\",\n \"## What confirms / kills the thesis\",\n \"Confirms: Pre-earnings IV expansion >15% or a sector-wide uranium rally ahead of the print. Kills: Guidance misses, continued U3O8 spot price weakness, or a standard 'sell-the-news' IV crush post-print.\",\n \"## Risk\",\n \"Event resolves but stock moves less than implied → debit decays to ~30% of paid premium. Theta decay accelerates sharply in the final 4 DTE. Illiquid strikes (OI ~117) may widen spreads during volatility spikes.\"\n]\nstructure: long_straddle\n call_strike: 13\n put_strike: 13\n expiry: \"2026-06-12\"\n call_debit: 0.58\n put_debit: 0.79\n total_debit: 1.37\n breakeven_high: 14.38\n breakeven_low: 11.62\nentry:\n price_at_idea: 12.82\n conditions: \"Enter intraday on June 5-6, 2026, before IV peaks. Monitor bid-ask spread; abort if >8%.\"\nexit:\n primary_target: \"Exit at 80% of max payoff OR close end-of-day after June 9 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: 7\nrisk:\n bear_case: \"Stock gaps down on a miss or soft guidance; IV crush post-earnings leaves both legs deeply out of the money with little recovery.\"\n what_breaks_thesis: \"Catalyst delayed past expiry; pre-empted disclosure ahead of event; outsized IV crush; OI/volume limits prevent efficient exit.\"\n position_size_pct: 0\n max_loss_per_contract: 1.37\n max_loss_note: \"Max loss = net premium paid (defined-risk debit structure).\"\nsources: [same as dossier]\nconfidence: 2\nanalyst: \"research-desk\"\nscout_model: \"minimax/minimax-m2.7\"\nanalyst_model: \"qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b\"\n\nCheck constraints:\n- \"If composite score 45-59 → draft a PAPER-TRACKED catalyst idea using the recommended structure only if it is measurable, source-backed, and not blocked by a hard gate\" -> Score is 55, so paper track.\n- \"draft.paper_track MUST be true\" -> yes.\n- \"headline MUST begin with 'Paper Track:'\" -> yes.\n- \"thesis_short MUST explicitly say this is a paper-tracked event setup, not an actionable recommendation\" -> I'll adjust thesis_short to explicitly say that.\n- \"risk.position_size_pct MUST be 0\" -> yes.\n- \"confidence MUST be 1 or 2\" -> I set 2.\n- \"exit.max_hold_dte MUST be present\" -> yes, 7.\n- \"Do not use paper_track to rescue bad liquidity, failed quality floor, stale catalyst dates, or anti-signal setups.\" -> Liquidity is bad (OI 117, B/A 7%), but the prompt says \"If composite score 45-59 → draft a PAPER-TRACKED catalyst idea using the recommended structure only if it is measurable, source-backed, and not blocked by a hard gate\". I'll note the liquidity risk but proceed as paper-track since it's not a hard blocker like fraud/going-concern. Actually, the prompt says \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\". Wait! There is a hard rule: \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\".\nLet's check the candidate contracts OI:\nContract 1 (long_straddle): open_interest_long: 117.\nContract 2 (debit_put_spread): open_interest_long: 21.\nNeither has OI ≥ 200. The rule says: \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\".\nThis is a hard skip condition!\nI must skip.\n\nLet's re-read carefully: \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\".\nYes, this is a hard gate.\nSo I will output a skip JSON.\n\nScore breakdown for skip:\ncatalyst_clarity: 15\nmagnitude_edge: 10\ndirection_evidence: 7\nstructure_efficiency: 10\nliquidity: 3\nquality_floor: 10\nTotal: 55.\nReason: \"Skip due to illiquid candidate contracts (max OI 117, below 200 threshold) and very near-term DTE (4) amplifying theta decay and execution risk.\"\n\nWait, let's verify the OI rule. \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\". It's explicit.\nI will skip.\n\nLet's double check the score.\nCatalyst clarity: 15 (4 DTE, outside 7-45 window)\nMagnitude edge: 10 (Edge exists but points to short vol, contradicts debit structure)\nDirection evidence: 7 (Mixed signals, technicals weak)\nStructure efficiency: 10 (Breakeven inside implied, but rich premium)\nLiquidity: 3 (OI < 500, B/A > 5%)\nQuality floor: 10 (Passes)\nTotal: 55.\n\nI will output the skip JSON.\nCheck format:\n{\n \"skip\": true,\n \"score\": 55,\n \"score_breakdown\": { ... },\n \"reason\": \"...\"\n}\nAll good.\nOne minor thing: The prompt says \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\". I will follow this strictly.\nI will generate the JSON now.\nLet's quickly verify the numbers in the prompt.\n\"open_interest_long\": 117 for straddle.\n\"open_interest_long\": 21 for put spread.\nBoth < 200.\nSkip is correct.\nOutput matches requirements.\nProceed. \nI will make sure the JSON is strictly formatted.\nScore breakdown matches exactly.\nReason is concise.\nDone. \nOutput matches request. \nSelf-Correction/Refinement during thought: \nWait, the prompt says \"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\". This is a hard skip condition. I will definitely skip.\nI'll construct the JSON carefully.\nAll fields present.\nReady. \nOutput generation. \n[Done] \n```json\n{\n \"skip\": true,\n \"score\": 55,\n \"score_breakdown\": {\n \"catalyst_clarity\": 15,\n \"magnitude_edge\": 10,\n \"direction_evidence\": 7,\n \"structure_efficiency\": 10,\n \"liquidity\": 3,\n \"quality_floor\": 10\n },\n \"reason\": \"Skip due to illiquid candidate contracts (max OI 117, below 200 threshold) and very near-term DTE (4) amplifying theta decay and execution risk. Implied move significantly overprices historical realized volatility, creating a magnitude edge favoring premium selling rather than the recommended debit straddle.\"\n}\n```\nWait, let's verify the score breakdown sums to 55. 15+10+7+10+3+10 = 55. Correct.\nCheck rubric limits: clarity 25, magnitude 25, direction 15, efficiency 15, liquidity 10, quality 10. All within limits.\nCheck format: strict JSON. No prose.\nAll good.\nProceeds. \nOutput matches. \n(Self-Correction/Note during generation prep: I should ensure the JSON keys and structure exactly match the prompt's skip template. The prompt shows:\n{\n \"skip\": true,\n \"score\": ,\n \"score_breakdown\": { ... },\n \"reason\": \"Brief reason\"\n}\nMatches exactly.)\nDone. \nOutput generation. \n[Final Check of the Prompt]\n\"If no candidate contracts have OI ≥200 → skip (illiquid)\" -> Hard rule.\nScore 55 -> 45-59 band -> normally paper track, but hard rule overrides.\nAll consistent.\nProceeds. \nOutput matches response. \n[Done]\n\n\n{\n \"skip\": true,\n \"score\": 55,\n \"score_breakdown\": {\n \"catalyst_clarity\": 15,\n \"magnitude_edge\": 10,\n \"direction_evidence\": 7,\n \"structure_efficiency\": 10,\n \"liquidity\": 3,\n \"quality_floor\": 10\n },\n \"reason\": \"Skip due to illiquid candidate contracts (max OI 117, below 200 threshold) and very near-term DTE (4) amplifying theta decay and execution risk. Implied move significantly overprices historical realized volatility, creating a magnitude edge favoring premium selling rather than the recommended debit straddle.\"\n}", "cleaned_content": "{\n \"skip\": true,\n \"score\": 55,\n \"score_breakdown\": {\n \"catalyst_clarity\": 15,\n \"magnitude_edge\": 10,\n \"direction_evidence\": 7,\n \"structure_efficiency\": 10,\n \"liquidity\": 3,\n \"quality_floor\": 10\n },\n \"reason\": \"Skip due to illiquid candidate contracts (max OI 117, below 200 threshold) and very near-term DTE (4) amplifying theta decay and execution risk. Implied move significantly overprices historical realized volatility, creating a magnitude edge favoring premium selling rather than the recommended debit straddle.\"\n}", "tool_calls": null, "finish_reason": "stop" } ], "tool_results": [], "final_message": "{\n \"skip\": true,\n \"score\": 55,\n \"score_breakdown\": {\n \"catalyst_clarity\": 15,\n \"magnitude_edge\": 10,\n \"direction_evidence\": 7,\n \"structure_efficiency\": 10,\n \"liquidity\": 3,\n \"quality_floor\": 10\n },\n \"reason\": \"Skip due to illiquid candidate contracts (max OI 117, below 200 threshold) and very near-term DTE (4) amplifying theta decay and execution risk. Implied move significantly overprices historical realized volatility, creating a magnitude edge favoring premium selling rather than the recommended debit straddle.\"\n}", "tool_calls_total": 0, "walltime_ms": 63897, "stop_reason": "stop", "completed_at": "2026-06-05T17:09:59.519Z" }