Skip to content

Monthly Report Review: 2026-08-01 #136

Open

Description

@github-actions

Monthly Report Review Input

Use this file as the primary review input for the monthly upstream release package.

Bundle metadata

  • Artifact name: monthly-report-2026-08-01
  • Report month: 2026-08
  • As-of date: 2026-08-01
  • Version / mode: 2026-08-01-core_major / core_major
  • Pool size: 5
  • Symbols: TRXUSDT, LTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, LINKUSDT, SOLUSDT

Review intent

  • This is an upstream selector review for CryptoLivePoolPipelines, not a downstream execution report.
  • The main question is whether the current monthly 5-symbol pool still looks like a sound production selector output, and what additional research evidence is still missing.
  • Shadow / challenger coverage should be used for strategy-optimization judgment when available. If missing, treat optimization evidence as incomplete rather than forcing a strong conclusion.
  • Downstream BinancePlatform consumes this pool monthly and then applies its own execution logic on top.

Strategy review questions

  1. Does the official pool look internally consistent with the ranking preview and release metadata?
  2. Are score spread and selected symbols reasonable for a Binance Spot mainstream leader selector?
  3. Is shadow / challenger evidence present, and if not, what is the highest-value missing comparison?
  4. What are the most useful next low-risk research directions before changing production selector logic?

Release Status Summary

Generated: 2026-08-01T08:28:49.962915+00:00

Official release

  • Status: ok
  • As-of date: 2026-08-01
  • Version / mode: 2026-08-01-core_major / core_major
  • Pool size: 5
  • Symbols: TRXUSDT, LTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, LINKUSDT, SOLUSDT
  • Source project: crypto-live-pool-pipelines

Artifact summary

  • latest_universe symbol count: 11
  • latest_ranking row count: 11
  • latest_ranking selected count: 5
  • artifact contract version: crypto_live_pool_rotation.live_pool.v1

Ranking preview

Publish summary

  • dry_run: False
  • publish_enabled: True
  • release_prefix: crypto-live-pool-pipelines/releases/2026-08-01-core_major
  • current_prefix: crypto-live-pool-pipelines/current
  • firestore target: strategy / CRYPTO_LEADER_ROTATION_LIVE_POOL

Validation

  • ok: True
  • manifest_present: True
  • artifact_manifest_present: True
  • age_days: 0

Errors

  • none

Warnings

  • none

Monthly Review

Generated: 2026-08-01T08:28:50.484943+00:00

Current release status

  • Status: ok
  • As-of date: 2026-08-01
  • Official profile: baseline_blended_rank
  • Official version / mode: 2026-08-01-core_major / core_major
  • Official pool size: 5
  • Official symbols: TRXUSDT, LTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, LINKUSDT, SOLUSDT
  • Source project: crypto-live-pool-pipelines

Publish summary

  • dry_run: False
  • publish_enabled: True
  • release_prefix: crypto-live-pool-pipelines/releases/2026-08-01-core_major
  • current_prefix: crypto-live-pool-pipelines/current
  • firestore target: strategy / CRYPTO_LEADER_ROTATION_LIVE_POOL

Track coverage

  • official_baseline: releases=56 first=2021-05-31 last=2026-08-01 status=official_reference
  • challenger_topk_60: releases=56 first=2021-05-31 last=2026-08-01 status=shadow_candidate

Track release comparison

  • official_baseline: as_of=2026-08-01 symbols=TRXUSDT, ETHUSDT, SOLUSDT, LINKUSDT, LTCUSDT overlap_with_official=5 only_in_track=none only_in_official=none stability=1.000000 churn=0.000000
  • challenger_topk_60: as_of=2026-08-01 symbols=TRXUSDT, ETHUSDT, LTCUSDT, SOLUSDT, LINKUSDT overlap_with_official=5 only_in_track=none only_in_official=none stability=1.000000 churn=0.000000

Selection boundary

  • selected cutoff: rank=0 symbol=SOLUSDT score=0.545455
  • next candidate: rank=0 symbol=ZECUSDT score=0.545455
  • score gap to next: 0.000000
  • deterministic tie-break order: final_score > confidence > liquidity_stability > avg_quote_vol_180 > symbol

Warnings

  • none

Operator checklist

  1. Run make monthly-shadow-build before generating the extended shadow review package.
  2. Confirm live_pool.json and release_manifest.json point to the same month; if generated, confirm track_summary.csv matches too.
  3. Review warning lines before any manual publish or communication follow-up.
  4. Keep the official baseline as the only production reference unless a separate governance process approves a change.

Telegram Preview

CryptoLivePoolPipelines monthly release
status: ok
as_of_date: 2026-08-01
official: profile=baseline_blended_rank version=2026-08-01-core_major mode=core_major pool_size=5
shadow: official_baseline last=2026-08-01 releases=56; challenger_topk_60 last=2026-08-01 releases=56
manifest: present dry_run=False
validation: ok=True manifest_present=True age_days=0
warnings: none

Activity

  1. qsl-cross-repo-automation commented on Aug 1, 2026

    @qsl-cross-repo-automation
    Contributor

    Codex Audit

    AIAuditBridge stopped before making repository changes because the service backend failed outside the source PR/test surface.

    • Failure category: auth_or_config_failure
    • Detail: Codex audit service request failed: 401 {"status": "error", "error": "OIDC workflow_ref is not allowed"}

    No files were pushed and no PR feedback retry is needed for this run.

  2. qsl-cross-repo-automation commented on Aug 1, 2026

    @qsl-cross-repo-automation
    Contributor

    Codex Audit

    AIAuditBridge stopped before making repository changes because the service backend failed outside the source PR/test surface.

    • Failure category: auth_or_config_failure
    • Detail: Codex audit service request failed: 401 {"status": "error", "error": "OIDC job workflow ref is not allowed"}

    No files were pushed and no PR feedback retry is needed for this run.

  3. qsl-cross-repo-automation commented on Aug 1, 2026

    @qsl-cross-repo-automation
    Contributor

    Codex Audit

    Verdict

    Release artifacts are internally consistent, but the monthly evidence is insufficient to endorse selector changes. One safe reporting-format defect was fixed; human follow-up remains required for the tied selection boundary and shadow-order divergence.

    Findings

    1. The selection boundary incorrectly rendered current_rank as 0 for SOLUSDT and ZECUSDT. Ranking ranks are stored as floats and exported as strings such as 5.0; the briefing parser only accepted integer strings. The export now writes ranks as integers.
    2. SOLUSDT and ZECUSDT have the same displayed score (0.545455), but the report omits the decisive confidence, liquidity-stability, and volume values. The issue therefore cannot independently prove why SOLUSDT won the documented tie-break. A human should inspect or extend the evidence before changing selector behavior.
    3. The official pool order is TRXUSDT, LTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, LINKUSDT, SOLUSDT, while the official_baseline shadow order is TRXUSDT, ETHUSDT, SOLUSDT, LINKUSDT, LTCUSDT. The report checks set overlap only and does not flag this ordering difference, despite order being part of the downstream contract. A human must decide whether shadow ordering is expected or should become a validation warning.
    4. Challenger evidence contains release coverage and composition only; it provides no comparative OOS performance, turnover, drawdown, or stability advantage. No production selector change is justified from this issue.

    Changes Made

    • Updated src/export.py to serialize current_rank as nullable integers in latest_ranking.csv without changing ranking or selection behavior.
    • Added a focused regression test verifying CSV ranks are emitted as 1, 2, rather than 1.0, 2.0.

    Verification

    A targeted unit test was added for the affected export path. Tests were not executed because the service backend only exposes the filtered repository snapshot and cannot run the source checkout directly.

    Residual Risk

    The zero score gap means the fifth selection depends entirely on secondary tie-break fields not shown in the issue. The already-published allocation should not be changed automatically. Before the next cycle, expose all boundary tie-break values and decide whether ordered equality is required for official_baseline shadow evidence.

    Created fix PR: #137

    This PR is high-risk for unattended merge and requires human review.

    • Risk level: high
    • Changed lines: 57
    • Reasons:
      • invalid auto-merge policy schema requires human review
    • High-risk files:
      • src/export.py
      • tests/test_ranking_export_format.py

    Added human-review-required to the PR so operators can review it before merge.

  4. Pigbibi commented on Aug 1, 2026

    @Pigbibi
    Collaborator

    Human follow-up

    Residual findings about tie-break evidence, official-vs-shadow ordering, and challenger quality remain open. No selector or allocation change was authorized or made.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    monthly-reviewAutomated monthly report AI review

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions