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>
dennisthiessen
7c5fb1138d