The first run gave only 2 events (N=2 is anecdote, not evidence) and an unfairly
weak coincident baseline, so the +42d lead couldn't be trusted. This makes the
measurement meaningful:
- More, cleaner events: default drawdown threshold 15%→10%, and dedup switched
from "recover to the high" to a rising-edge + cooldown (40d), so distinct
drawdowns each register instead of merging.
- Fair comparison: each indicator now warns at its OWN 80th percentile instead of
a shared absolute 60, removing the artifact that muted the coincident baseline.
- Per-event breakdown (date · depth · breadth lead · coincident lead) so a median
over a tiny sample can't hide an apples-to-oranges comparison — you see whether
both warned on the same drawdown.
- Surface precision/recall (best row) + base rate per indicator — the honest edge
read, not just lead time.
Re-run the Event Study job to regenerate the cached report in the new shape.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adds a leading-by-construction candidate and the harness to measure whether it
actually leads regime breaks, before any of it earns weight in the live index.
- breadth_service: % of the stored universe above its own 200-DMA + a divergence
score (benchmark price up while breadth falls, nudged by low breadth). Genuinely
leading because it keys on divergence, not level. Not wired into the live score.
- event_study_service: detect drawdown events on the benchmark, then measure each
indicator's median lead time (event-centered) and precision/recall vs. the base
rate (signal-centered). Compares breadth-divergence against the deterministic
coincident price composite (reuses the regime price sub-scores). Price/breadth
only — reproducible, no LLM/FRED.
- Manual "Event Study" job (Admin → Jobs), GET /regime/event-study, and an
inline early-warning panel on the Regime tab with an honest small-sample caveat.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
dennisthiessen