AXOFUND

Library

Everything we publish, dated and status-tracked.

Every item is identified the way it would be cited: by its title and the month it was published. A publication date is never revised and a title is never reused for a different item, so a reference made today still resolves in twenty years without a lookup table. No item is ever silently edited. A wrong item is corrected by a new item that cites it, and the wrong one stays listed with its status so the record remains reconstructable. Full texts are shared on request with operating parameters redacted, and the redaction policy is published at the foot of this page, not left to be inferred.

The index below is flat, dated and newest first. It includes the corrections and the retraction, because a library that lists only what survived is showing you its selection bias, not its work.

Start here

The index below is flat and dated, which is right for citing and wrong for arriving. If you are reading once, read these three, in this order.

01

Machines propose. Statistics dispose.

Models write the code and generate the hypotheses, and nothing a model emits is permitted to adjudicate. Carries the measurement we ran against our own judges, the ordinance that keeps a better-ranking learned scorer advisory anyway, and the failure mode that governs the engineering: a component that reports success while doing nothing.

02

We measured our own instrument

We ran the pipeline over synthetic panels calibrated to real markets and containing nothing to find. At full search width it returned a best-of-search survivor on 6 of 6. Published with the false-negative half beside it, rather than the half that flatters us.

03

A store that manufactures winners

Three defect classes in our own bar store, including the direction nobody writes about, where a defect suppresses a real result instead of inventing one. One scheduled-coupon calendar left in the price path produced a screen result that cleared every conventional threshold.

What we publish

Seven types, defined once. A type is listed here only if it is either in use or required by policy; the count is of items in the index below.

Item types and live counts, 2026-08-02. Complete by construction: this is a census of the index below, not a sample.
Type Definition Items
Working paper A full result with its apparatus: what was measured, over what n, against what null, and what it returned. 5
Method note A single procedural decision, the evidence behind it, and the rule it now enforces. Defined; nothing has published under it yet. 0
Decommission A programme we built, tested and switched off, with the date and the reason it was switched off. 1
Data-quality finding A defect in a data source that produced, or would have produced, a false result downstream. 1
Charter Pre-registration. The success metric, the kill bars and the stop rule for a campaign, published before the campaign runs. 1
Correction An item that corrects an earlier item. The earlier item is not edited. 2
Retraction An item withdrawn in whole. It stays listed, with its status, and its text is not quoted forward. 1

A type with nothing published under it is listed with a count of zero.

The index

Newest first, each item under its title and its publication month. Items published in full on this page link to their section here; items with their own text link out. Status vocabulary is closed: current · revised YYYY-MM · superseded · corrected · retracted, and a superseded, corrected or retracted status names the item that did it.

2026-08 · working paper · current

Two nulls, because they answer different questions.

A matched control asks whether a book beats its neighbours. Only a calibrated edge-free generator asks whether it beats nothing at all, and we had been reading the first answer as though it were the second; three incidents in one campaign were the bill for it. Re-scored against a null-winner distribution built for each book's own universe and window, 19 books that had already cleared the matched-control gate returned 2 clear, 3 marginal and 14 below. Carries a doctrine reversal published against ourselves, and the generator's own out-of-sample moment-match table declared outstanding, not assumed.

Stands on pipelines · metrics · entropy

nulls · surrogate data · doctrine reversal · self-audit

2026-08 · retraction · current

Retraction of “Ranking for the upside tail”, and the confound that forced it

“Ranking for the upside tail”, published 2026-07 and listed below, is withdrawn in whole. The corpus its conclusions rested on was optimised at roughly a fifth of the production trial budget, with the shortfall tracking strategy complexity, so under-cooked strategies and genuinely weak ones cannot be told apart in that sample, and the conclusions we liked go with the ones we did not.

retraction · trial budget · selection · re-audit

2026-08 · correction · current

Two different breadths were published under one name

Our coverage page and our index carried different counts of the same apparent quantity. Neither number was wrong: they measure vendor-catalogue breadth and ingested breadth, two things that had never been given different names.

correction · coverage · naming

2026-08 · correction · current

“Refuted” overstated what we had actually tested

The funnel figure described the whole archived mass as refuted. Only the minority that accumulated enough independent windows ever reached a gate; the rest were abandoned earlier, which is a different and less flattering word.

correction · funnel · vocabulary

2026-08 · charter · current

What a campaign declares before it runs

The six components pinned before any cell dispatches: a complex-level success metric net of correlation with what we already hold, per-lane kill bars, a hard calendar-or-compute stop, a pre-registered expansion trigger, a written section naming what would make the plan wrong, and a deployability check that runs before any compute is spent. Published as a template; the bars themselves are calibration and are withheld.

pre-registration · kill bars · deployability · governance

2026-08 · working paper · current

Machines propose. Statistics dispose.

Models author strategy code and generate hypotheses at volume, and nothing a model emits is permitted to adjudicate. Includes the measurement we ran against our own judges, the ordinance that keeps a better-ranking learned scorer advisory, and the failure mode that governs the engineering: a component that reports success while doing nothing.

Stands on crowds · metrics · tabular-dl

governance · model judges · silent-zero · self-limitation

2026-08 · data-quality finding · current

A store that manufactures winners

Three defect classes in our own bar store: an empty corporate-action table that left every bar unadjusted, an implausible absence of delistings, and the direction nobody writes about, where a defect suppresses a real result instead of inventing one. A single scheduled-coupon calendar, left in the price path, manufactured a screen result that cleared every conventional threshold: 65% of its entries fell within five sessions of an ex-distribution drop against a 17% base rate, n = 111 trades over four years of daily bars.

Stands on pipelines · outliers

data quality · corporate actions · false positives

2026-08 · working paper · current

We measured our own instrument

We ran the pipeline on synthetic panels calibrated to real markets and containing nothing to find, and at full search width it returned a best-of-search survivor on every panel: 6 of 6 independent panels. Published with the false-negative half beside it, and with the generator's own outstanding validation declared as outstanding, not assumed.

Stands on metrics · outliers · pipelines

nulls · search width · self-audit · detection floor

2026-07 · decommission · current

A forecasting programme, retired

Three pre-registered variants of a forecast entry gate failed their bars on the same day, for about two CPU-hours of compute in total. The forecaster reprices recent realised volatility instead of leading it; the server was switched off and one fine-tune branch remains unfalsified.

Stands on forecasting · volatility

decommission · pre-registration · volatility

2026-07 · working paper · retracted

Ranking for the upside tail

Claimed a book-construction rule from a point-in-time forward test of our own corpus. Withdrawn in whole, 2026-08; the reason and what remains open are in the retraction notice published against it. Its text is not quoted forward, here or anywhere.

selection · point-in-time · withdrawn

2026-06 · working paper · revised 2026-07

Enforced structure ports. Statistical structure does not.

A relationship with an obligated enforcer (a prospectus rebalance mandate, a defended currency band, share-class identity, contract convergence, an index mandate) survives specificity controls; co-movement without one does not. Revised after a venue-authenticity audit withdrew one class of supporting evidence, leaving the principle resting on the remainder and the audit itself as the paper's strongest exhibit.

Stands on cointegration · microstructure · regime

mechanism · specificity · enforcement · controls

FIG. 1 — THE LIBRARY, CUMULATIVE
1 3 11 2026-06 2026-07 2026-08 3 corrections + retraction 8 prose items
Items in this library by month of publication, cumulative. n = 11 items across three monthly buckets; the series is a census of our own record, complete by construction, not a sample, and it is the same eleven rows listed above. Dark marks the 3 audit items (two corrections and one retraction), the only class here that exists because something we had already published was wrong; grey marks the 8 prose items: five working papers, one decommission, one data-quality finding, one charter. The chart is short because the library is young; we would rather publish a short index with abstracts than a long one without.

Standing items

Three documents are revised continuously and would be mis-sorted by a date index, so they are listed separately with the date their current form came into force. They are not items in the index above: an item there is fixed at the month it was published, and a document that has to keep changing cannot be.

What a campaign declares before it runs

Charter · 2026-08 · current

Published as a template. Every campaign opens with these six pinned before a single cell dispatches, and the document is dated and filed before the results exist.

The discipline pays for itself in compute as well as in credibility. One pre-registered round retired three variants of the same idea in a single day for about two CPU-hours in total, including a first pass that graded top of its cohort before inspection showed the module had inverted its fail-open rule and the optimiser had throttled the gate until only 19 trades survived to be scored. Without a bar written in advance, that first pass is a result. With one, it is an afternoon.

Corrections and retractions

Three items, kept here instead of on a page of their own: three corrections do not fill a page, and a near-empty corrections page reads as a claim rather than a record. Each entry names the item it acts on by title and date, and states what was published, what was wrong, and what supersedes it.

2026-08 · correction · corrects the funnel figure on the cover

“Refuted” overstated what we had actually tested

Published. A funnel figure describing the whole archived strategy mass as refuted.

Wrong. Only the minority of strategies that accumulated enough independent test windows ever faced the specificity gate. The remainder were abandoned earlier (at authoring validation, at a build, or on an activity floor) and never met a null at all. Abandoned before test and refuted by test are different claims, and the second flatters us.

Supersedes. The figure now separates authored, gate-tested and survived as three distinct counts, and the archive language distinguishes abandonment from refutation. The counts themselves live on the index, which is their home of record.

2026-08 · correction · corrects the exchange-breadth figures on coverage and the cover

Two different breadths were published under one name

Published. Two different counts of exchange breadth, on two pages, presented as though they were the same quantity.

Wrong. Not the numbers but the naming. One counts what our vendor catalogue offers; the other counts what has been ingested and is read by live research. Both are true and they are not the same thing. A reader had no way to know that, and the discrepancy read as sloppiness rather than as the distinction it actually was.

Supersedes. Coverage now names both quantities and prints each against the thing it counts. Coverage is the home of record for estate figures; other pages link to it instead of restating them. Restatement is what let the two drift apart in the first place.

2026-08 · retraction · withdraws Ranking for the upside tail, 2026-07

Retraction of “Ranking for the upside tail”, in whole

Published. Ranking for the upside tail, a working paper of 2026-07 proposing a book-construction rule, whose conclusions were already circulating internally and had begun to shape how books were assembled.

Wrong. The corpus underneath it was optimised at roughly a fifth of the production trial budget, and the shortfall tracked strategy complexity, so the strategies most likely to be under-cooked were exactly the ones the paper's ranking treated as weak. Under-optimisation and genuine weakness are not separable in that sample, which makes the sample invalid for the question the paper asked. Every conclusion goes, including the ones we liked; a retraction that keeps the flattering half is not a retraction.

Supersedes. Nothing, yet. The campaign is being redone at the production budget. The corpus is archived under a distinct name, not deleted, so the redo can be compared against it, and the paper stays listed in the index with status retracted so that anyone who read it internally can find out that it is gone.

The rule that caught it. The confound was named in a companion paper's limitations section before anyone acted on it. The standing rule now is that a confound named in a limitations section is a scheduled experiment, not a disclaimer: it goes on the register with a date, or it does not go in the limitations section.

Standing consequence · re-audit doctrine

Re-audit from the artefacts, not from the records

Both corrections and the retraction have the same shape: a written record that had never been checked against the thing it described. So the rule. Every claim carried forward from a closed campaign is re-derived from the stored run artefacts or re-run from the pinned script, never quoted from our own write-up. Where a record and its artefact disagree, the artefact wins and the disagreement is itself a finding. Where an artefact cannot be located or re-run, the claim is void, not probably fine.

The probe that set the budget for the most recent review was a single spot check on a one-day-old record: the campaign document matched its artefact, and the journal entry written the same day disagreed with both on four of the values it shared with them. One day old, one probe, one discrepancy. That is the base rate a review has to plan for, and it is why the review is budgeted in weeks, not in an afternoon.

The self-critique belongs here too, because it is the obvious way for this to fail. A re-audit that re-runs the same scripts against the same store and reports agreement has confirmed determinism, not correctness. Testing the instrument rather than the pipeline means planting an effect the instrument should certainly find and confirming it finds it, then planting nothing at all and confirming it finds nothing. Only the second pair of probes says anything about whether the first result meant something.

Reading the library

Every item published with its own text declares two things at its foot. Stands on points down into the reading list, at the shelf the item drew from, so a claim about prior art can be checked against the shelf, not taken on trust. Cited by points across to the other items in this library that build on it, naming each by its title. Between them, the citations are what make this a body of work rather than a pile of documents, and they are the reason a wrong item is corrected by a new item, not edited: an edit silently changes what every citation pointed at.

These cross-references are hand-maintained. There is no build step on this site and therefore no generated backlinks and no build-time citation check; a link check is run before publish and that is the whole of the machinery. Claiming more than that, on the page that argues for fail-loud engineering, is the one self-indulgence a reader would be right to catch.

Redaction policy

The protectable property in this shop is the calibration and the edges, not the methods. The methods are published science and we publish them. These classes of number do not appear anywhere on this site, in any item, in any figure caption:

  1. Calibration values of any kind: score floors, cut-offs, tuned thresholds, and the weights inside our own composites.
  2. Detection floors in absolute units.
  3. Discrimination values for our own instruments. The ordering is published; the value is not.
  4. Per-book returns, Sharpe ratios, or drawdowns.
  5. Capacity in dollars.
  6. Leverage settings.
  7. Search-width configuration counts.
  8. The ranking of which statistics predict survival.
  9. Named live edges, instruments, pairs or venues we currently trade, and the market lists we screen. A refuted result is safe to publish; the set of markets it was screened on is not, because across a page a market list is itself a disclosure of where we look.

The substitution rule is what we publish instead: the ordering, the policy, the n, and the direction. Then the withheld value is declared as withheld, in the same sentence, every time, so a reader can grep this site for the phrase and audit that every proprietary claim announced itself.

A declared redaction is stronger than an omission. An omission tells a reader nothing. A declared redaction tells them the number exists, that we hold it, and that we chose not to print it, which is a claim they can hold us to later.

Underneath all of it, a journal

The library sits on an append-only research journal. Substantive questions and findings get a dated entry, chronologically. A prior entry is never edited to fix it; a superseding entry is written instead, and the trail stays reconstructable by someone who was not there.

Each entry records the surprises, the assumptions that turned out to be wrong, and the things a reviewer should sanity-check: leakage risks, slices too small to carry the claim, framing choices that would flatter us if unexamined. That convention is the reason the discrepancy in the retraction's companion probe is visible at all: the journal entry that was wrong is still there, still wrong, with the entry that corrects it underneath.