Audit Log — failures, corrections, root-cause analysis

This file records substantive failures of the kit's research output and the corrective actions taken. Each entry captures (1) what was wrong, (2) what was actually true, (3) where the error propagated, (4) root cause, (5) corrective actions.

The log is read at every kit-debrief and at the November 2026 six-month review. The purpose is learning, not blame. Failures preserved here are the curriculum for the discipline.

Entry #001 — 2026-05-28 — SNOW Q1 FY27 categorical mis-read

What the house view recorded

From _house-view.md lines 178 and 179 (recent confirming developments for Earnings cycle character / Software / SaaS valuation environment positions):

SNOW Q1 FY27 beat product revenue ($1.33B +34% YoY; total $1.39B vs. $1.32B exp) and raised FY27 product revenue guide modestly (~$5.84B from ~$5.66B) with similar muted AH reaction.

The PM-27 entry further claimed:

The cleanest single data point: a $25B accelerated buyback announcement on top of clean revenue + EPS + segment growth + AI ARR metrics did not deliver multiple expansion. The theme is now confirmed to operate symmetrically — extended setups fade on confirmation; compressed setups don't pop on confirmation.

The AM-28 entry extended this with "symmetric-operation refinement confirmed with one extra notch of conviction."

What was actually true

Verified against T2; T1; T2; T2; T2.

The print was a clean beat-and-accelerate plus a transformative external commitment, and the tape priced it accordingly with a +37% AH pop.

Where the error propagated

17 files identified by Grep for SNOW|Snowflake:

• 13-Research/_house-view.md — source position; the "muted AH" claim originates here
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-27-PM.md — origin of the mis-read (the print date)
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-28-AM.md — propagation
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-28-PM.md — propagation
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-26-PM.md — pre-print framing (less critical)
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-27-AM.md — pre-print framing
• 13-Research/Daily-Scans/2026-05-27-AM.md — pre-print framing
• 13-Research/Daily-Scans/2026-05-27-PM.md — propagation
• 13-Research/Daily-Scans/2026-05-28-AM.md — propagation
• 13-Research/Daily-Scans/2026-05-28-PM.md — propagation
• 13-Research/Daily-Scans/2026-05-28-intraday-0901.md — propagation
• 13-Research/Daily-Scans/2026-05-28-intraday-1101.md — propagation
• 13-Research/Daily-Scans/2026-05-28-intraday-1301.md — propagation
• 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-27.md — propagation
• 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-28.md — propagation
• 14-Optimization/Daily/2026-05-28.md — propagation
• 09-Theses/PLTR/PLTR - MAY2026/PLTR-thesis.md — likely referenced as cohort-context only; needs verification
• 13-Research/long-form/business/2026-05-28-token-cost-cuts-yellow-brick-road.md — the long-form filed today uses the wrong SNOW read via the House view reconciliation section

Root cause

Primary cause: primary-source pre-flight not honored. The house view recorded "SNOW beat … raised modestly … muted AH" without opening the 8-K, press release, or transcript. The actual print numbers ($1.33B product, $1.39B total) were close enough to suggest sloppy summarization from a T3 aggregator; everything else (EPS magnitude, AWS deal, AH reaction, guide-rate acceleration) was either missing or wrong. The thesis-preflight checklist has a "Tier 1 deliverable confirmation" box for earnings claims that was not ticked.

Contributing cause: confirmation bias toward the standing theme. The cycle-late-selectivity / symmetric-operation framing was actively being defended in the PM-27 entry. A SNOW print that fit the theme (beat + modest raise + muted AH) was the convenient read; a SNOW print that broke it (beat + acceleration + transformative deal + huge AH pop) was the inconvenient read. The convenient read was recorded. This is a known failure mode in calibration — when a theme is being defended and a borderline data point arrives, the bias is toward fitting the data point to the theme rather than letting the data point challenge the theme.

Contributing cause: AM/PM template tolerates internal-vocabulary loops. "Symmetric-operation refinement … confirmed with one additional notch of conviction" is a self-referential framing that obscures that the underlying evidence was never primary-source verified. Plainer English would have forced the writer to say "SNOW had a muted AH reaction" — at which point a 30-second sanity check would have shown +37% AH on every aggregator.

Corrective actions

1. AM/PM template frozen — see _FROZEN-2026-05-28.md. No new AM/PM, intraday, or daily scan is written until the three discipline additions are codified.
2. SNOW corrections in place across all 17 files with visible "[corrected 2026-05-28 — see audit-log #001]" markers at each edit site. Originals are preserved within the marker so the failure pattern remains auditable.
3. Cycle-late-selectivity theme re-read against corrected SNOW evidence. The symmetric-operation refinement is partially falsified: the compressed-setup-doesn't-pop side held with CRM (Q2 guide miss, −2% AH close), but the acceleration side did not hold with SNOW. The corrected framing is: FY-trajectory-vs-implied holds asymmetrically — compressed setups don't pop on modest beats, but acceleration combined with a transformative external catalyst still does pop cohort multiples. The theme is therefore not as cleanly symmetric as the PM-27 entry claimed.
4. Long-form re-read. The 2026-05-28 token-cost-cuts piece cites the cycle-late-selectivity theme in its House view reconciliation section but does not rest its central thesis on the SNOW read specifically. The piece's spine — token-cost-substitution running ahead of productivity validation, anchored on Uber/Microsoft Claude Code evidence and Schmidt's Yellow Brick Road framing — survives the SNOW correction. The House view reconciliation section is being edited to reflect the corrected theme; the rest of the piece stands.
5. One-time backward-looking audit of all earnings claims 2026-05-23 through 2026-05-28 scheduled for 2026-05-29 07:00 ET as alphasteve-week-earnings-audit-catchup. Any further divergence found will be logged as Entry #002, with the same four-dimension format.
6. Recurring primary-source verification embedded in the daily optimization task — alphasteve-daily-optimization SKILL.md extended 2026-05-28 with a mandatory verification step that runs every morning. The step extracts every quantitative claim from the prior 24 hours of new vault content, opens the primary source, cross-checks, and logs any discrepancy as audit-log entry #002+. This is the forward-looking mechanism that prevents SNOW-pattern recurrence. Bounded to quantitative claims; interpretive claims stay out of scope.
7. Three-clean-run freeze-lift condition codified in _FROZEN-2026-05-28.md "Freeze-lift mechanism" section. The AM/PM freeze lifts when the daily optimization verification step runs clean for three consecutive sessions. Counter maintained in the file; resets on any discrepancy. The optimization task is authorized to lift the freeze mechanically when the counter reaches 3 (Tier 1 action).

What this entry will be measured against at the November 2026 six-month review

• Did the three discipline additions (primary-source pre-flight, price-action cap, plain-English constraint) survive in practice?
• Did the SNOW-pattern failure recur with a different name?
• Did the cycle-late-selectivity theme (corrected) hold over the subsequent print seasons?
• Did the audit log get used as the curriculum it is intended to be, or did it become bureaucratic overhead?

Entry #002 — 2026-05-28 — SNOW Q1 FY27 non-GAAP EPS consensus mis-stated by the entry #001 correction itself

What the house view recorded (post-entry-#001 correction)

Entry #001 corrective action #2 stated SNOW Q1 FY27 non-GAAP EPS as $0.39 vs. $0.14 consensus — +178% above. The same figure was propagated into the corrected versions of 2026-05-27-PM.md, 2026-05-28-AM.md, and _house-view.md (line 186) during the entry #001 sweep. The PM-27 corrected bullet went further and explicitly said the original PM-27 reading of $0.32 consensus was "wrong" and that the "actual EPS consensus was $0.14."

What was actually true

Verified against T2; T2; T2; cross-checked against Snowflake's own beat-vs-consensus disclosure in the Q1 FY27 press release supplement T1.

The reported EPS of $0.39 stands. The consensus figure of $0.14 is the source of the error — no public consensus tracker (Investing.com, indmoney, Sherwood, chartmill, Zacks coverage of the print) reports $0.14 as the SNOW Q1 FY27 non-GAAP EPS consensus. The number aggregators agree on is $0.32. The original PM-27 entry's $0.32 reading was correct; the entry #001 correction replaced a correct number with an incorrect one.

The qualitative read of entry #001 — that SNOW was a clean beat-and-accelerate that closed +37% AH on a $6B AWS deal — is itself correct and stands. The $6B deal is correct. The +37% AH is correct. The product revenue, NRR, customer count, FY27 guide raise, and AWS-deal terms are all correct. The error is narrowly the EPS-consensus number and the "+178%" beat framing.

Where the error propagated

Four files contain the $0.14 consensus / +178% beat figure introduced by the entry #001 correction:

• 14-Optimization/audit-log.md — entry #001, corrective action table row "EPS | Not mentioned as headline | $0.39 vs. $0.14 consensus — +178% above"
• 13-Research/_house-view.md — line 186, recent-confirming bullet for Earnings cycle character
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-27-PM.md — SNOW bullet under Business & corporates
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-28-AM.md — SNOW bullet under Business & corporates

The error did not propagate to 2026-05-28-PM.md (which characterizes the beat qualitatively as "EPS beat" without citing the $0.14 figure) or to the long-form pieces filed today.

Root cause

Primary cause: the entry #001 corrective sweep did not itself follow the primary-source pre-flight rule it was created to enforce. Entry #001 was assembled rapidly under audit pressure when the SNOW mis-read was first caught. The four-dimension table at the top of the entry was populated from a single T3-aggregator consensus reference that gave $0.14, which the sweep then propagated through every "corrected" version of the SNOW bullet. The cited T1 source for the actual EPS print (SNOW 8-K) does not state consensus; it states the reported number. The consensus check should have gone to FactSet, Visible Alpha, or a documented analyst-survey aggregator before being written into the audit log. It did not.

Contributing cause: a correction operation under time pressure was treated as lower-risk than the original error. Corrections feel safer than original claims because they are framed as fixing something; the discipline applied to them is laxer. The opposite is true: a correction that introduces new errors is more dangerous than the original error because it propagates while wearing the badge of corrected. Every reader of the corrected PM-27 / AM-28 bullet would have taken the $0.14 / +178% figure as freshly verified.

Contributing cause: the original (correct) PM-27 figure was explicitly overridden. The PM-27 corrected bullet says "original bullet … read the EPS consensus as $0.32; both wrong. Actual EPS consensus was $0.14." The kit had the right answer first and then changed it to the wrong answer based on an unverified source. This is the worst possible failure pattern for a correction sweep — overriding correct prior work without a documented primary-source verification.

Corrective actions

1. Audit log entry #001 is itself amended with a [corrected 2026-05-28 evening — see audit-log #002] marker preserving the original wrong $0.14 / +178% table row alongside the actual $0.32 / +21.88% correction. The original entry's qualitative conclusions (the AWS deal, the +37% AH, the symmetric-operation partial falsification) are unaffected.

2. The three downstream files (_house-view.md, 2026-05-27-PM.md, 2026-05-28-AM.md) are edited in place with [corrected 2026-05-28 evening — see audit-log #002] markers at each EPS reference. The wrong figure is preserved alongside the correct one so the failure pattern remains auditable.

3. The verification-run counter in _FROZEN-2026-05-28.md resets to 0 on this discrepancy (it was already 0 as initialized; this run was the first counted attempt).

4. A discipline note for future corrective sweeps: corrections under audit pressure must run the same primary-source pre-flight as original claims. The presence of a [corrected] marker does not lower the verification bar; it raises it, because the correction is published as resolved. This belongs in the AM/PM template's three discipline additions (am-pm-template) but the existing rules already imply it — the formal codification is a Tier 2 backlog item for user review.

5. Backlog item flagged: the standing P1 backlog item for a full-week earnings-claim verification (2026-05-23 through 2026-05-28 across NVDA, PLTR, NOW, MSFT, ASML, ZS, AZO, MU, SK Hynix, NTNX, HPQ, DELL, COST, OKTA, MRVL, CRM) should now be expanded to verify the audit-log entry #001 sweep itself — every "corrected" claim made during the entry #001 fix should be primary-source-checked. If $0.14 was wrong, what else from that sweep was wrong?

What this entry will be measured against at the November 2026 six-month review

• Did the primary-source pre-flight discipline take hold on corrective writes, not just original writes?
• Did the verification counter ever accumulate to a meaningful clean streak after this reset?
• Did the discipline of preserving original-wrong-claim alongside correction survive in practice, or did silent overwrites resume under time pressure?

Entry #003 — 2026-05-29 — Portfolio Daily Note 2026-05-28 records May-27 index closes as May-28 closes

What the portfolio note recorded

From 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-28.md lines 11 and 89, the Thursday May 28 portfolio summary stated:

S&P 500 closed at a fresh record 7,520.36 (+0.02%) T3.

And in the Sources section:

S&P 500 cash close 7,520.36 (+0.02%), Dow 50,644.28 (+0.4%), Nasdaq 26,674.74 (+0.07%) T3

The note further estimated SPY May 28 close at $750.61 by applying the +0.02% S&P move to the corrected $750.46 May-27 SPY baseline, and recorded portfolio alpha of −0.18 pp vs. SPY for the day.

What was actually true

Verified against T3; T3; T3; cross-checked against the corresponding figures in 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-28-PM.md market-close section (which has the correct May-28 closes).

The entire benchmark-close row in the portfolio note is May 27's data mis-attributed to May 28. The PM-28 research note filed the same evening has the correct May-28 closes (S&P 7,563.63 +0.58%, Nasdaq 26,917.47 +0.91%, Dow 50,668.97 +0.05%). The two artifacts disagree.

Where the error propagated

Three locations in the portfolio note itself:

• 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-28.md line 11 — Summary paragraph S&P record-close claim
• 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-28.md line 89 — Sources block S&P / Dow / Nasdaq closes
• 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-28.md line 93–94 — SPY May 28 estimated close and the alpha-vs-SPY computation in the header

The error did not propagate to the PM-28 research note (which independently has the correct numbers), and did not propagate to other vault files in scope for today's review.

Root cause

Primary cause: T3 source attribution without primary-source cross-check on the date itself. The portfolio note cites TheStreet and Globe and Mail as sources, but TheStreet's "Stock Market Today (May 28, 2026)" article confirms the record close at 7,563.63. The error is not in the source — the source has the right number — but in the value transcribed from the source. The pattern looks like a stale-tile read at portfolio-note-generation time, where the previous trading day's close was still surfacing on whatever aggregator-tile the portfolio task pulled from.

Contributing cause: this is the third recurrence of the same pattern. The optimization log for 2026-05-28 morning flagged: "The 2026-05-26 S&P close discrepancy between PM research, PM scan, and the portfolio note (7,519.12 vs. 7,473.47) remains under Tier 3 protection." The 2026-05-26 portfolio note had a similar S&P-close mismatch against the PM research note. The 2026-05-28 portfolio note now has the same pattern. The portfolio task's benchmark-close sourcing has a discipline gap that has not been closed.

**Contributing cause: the portfolio note's own "Data-quality note" section (lines 105–107) acknowledges T3-est uncertainty on RPV / RPG benchmark prices and explicitly excludes S&P from the estimate-band. The S&P close is treated as a clean directly-cited number — and therefore not flagged at write time when the cited number was off by 43 points. The kit's own self-acknowledged data-quality framing did not catch this because the framing presupposed S&P was fine.

Corrective actions

1. The portfolio note 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-28.md is edited in place with [corrected 2026-05-29 — see audit-log #003] markers at each index-close reference. The wrong figures are preserved alongside the correct ones so the failure pattern remains auditable.

2. The verification-run counter in _FROZEN-2026-05-28.md resets to 0 on this discrepancy. The counter had been 0 since entry #002; this is the second consecutive reset, meaning the verification step has now caught discrepancies on its first two counted runs.

3. Tier 2 backlog item filed: "Portfolio daily note benchmark-sourcing discipline — third recurrence of mis-attributed index close." The portfolio task's primary-source pre-flight rule needs to be hardened the same way the AM/PM template was after audit-log #001. Specifically: when the portfolio task cites a S&P / Dow / Nasdaq close in a daily note, the close should be cross-checked against a second source (or the PM research note for the same day, which has its own verification discipline). This is a portfolio-task-level discipline addition; the optimization task cannot autonomously change another scheduled task's prompt.

4. The qualitative reads in the portfolio note are unaffected. The "hold cash for a third consecutive day" conclusion, the discipline-review reasoning, the rotation interpretation (defensive/consumer-disc), the PCE-print interpretation, the Iran-cycle interpretation, and the Probe-basket rejection all stand. The error is narrowly in the benchmark close figures and the alpha-vs-SPY computation.

What this entry will be measured against at the November 2026 six-month review

• Did the portfolio-task benchmark-sourcing discipline get hardened, or did the same pattern recur a fourth time?
• Did the verification-run counter ever accumulate to a meaningful clean streak after this reset?
• Did the portfolio task's "Data-quality note" framing get extended to cover S&P / Dow / Nasdaq closes the way it currently covers RPV / RPG?

Entry #004 — 2026-05-29 — Full-week earnings-claim verification (May 23-28 2026)

Note on numbering: the corrective-action in entry #001 scheduled this audit as "Entry #002." Two intervening audit events have already filed under #002 (SNOW EPS-consensus self-error) and #003 (portfolio note benchmark-close mis-attribution) since 2026-05-28 evening. This audit is therefore filed as Entry #004, preserving the task brief's intent (a single backward-looking pass across every earnings-claim cited in research notes 2026-05-23 through 2026-05-28) while respecting the live numbering. The task brief was generated 2026-05-28 evening when the next entry was correctly anticipated to be #002; #002 and #003 were filed in the intervening 12 hours.

Summary

• Tickers in scope: 17 — MRVL, CRM, SNOW (verify correction stuck), NVDA, PLTR, NOW, MSFT, ASML, ZS, AZO, MU, SK Hynix, NTNX, HPQ, DELL, COST, OKTA
• Tickers verified clean against vault claims: 7 — CRM, AZO, ASML, COST, HPQ, OKTA, SK Hynix
• Tickers with discrepancies: 10 — MRVL (material — magnitude framing), SNOW (material — entry-#002 sweep gap on _house-view.md line 57), NVDA (minor — same-day omission + unverified CFO quote), PLTR (minor — growth-rate rounding), NOW (minor — ambiguous "flat organic guide" wording), MSFT (minor — magnitude unverified), MU (minor — vault was right, the initial agent verification was wrong; logging the verification-process near-miss), ZS (minor — AH magnitude), NTNX (omission — same-day buyback + NetApp alliance), DELL (minor — AH magnitude framing)
• Severity tier breakdown: 2 material discrepancies (MRVL FY27/FY28 magnitude framing, SNOW EPS line 57 of _house-view.md not corrected by entry-#002 sweep), 7 minor discrepancies, 1 verification-process near-miss (MU)
• Files edited in place: 3 (_house-view.md, 2026-05-27-PM.md, 2026-05-28-ai-memory-cohort-multiple-inflection.md)
• A clean audit? No. Two material discrepancies surfaced, including one (SNOW EPS line 57) that is itself a propagation gap from the entry-#002 sweep — the third consecutive audit-log entry surfacing a SNOW-related sourcing error. The pattern is itself the load-bearing finding.

Per-ticker findings

SNOW Q1 FY27 — material discrepancy: entry-#002 sweep missed _house-view.md line 57

What the house view recorded: _house-view.md line 57 (recent-confirming-developments for Earnings cycle character) said:

SNOW actually beat product revenue ($1.33B +34% YoY), beat EPS by ~178% ($0.39 vs. $0.14), raised FY27 growth rate from 27% to 31% YoY (acceleration, not modest), and announced a $6B 5-year AWS deal the same evening — stock closed +37% AH.

What was actually true (already established in entry #002): SNOW Q1 FY27 non-GAAP EPS was $0.39 vs. $0.32 consensus, +21.88% beat T1. The "$0.14 / +178%" figure was introduced by the entry-#001 sweep, refuted by entry #002, and corrected at _house-view.md line 192 with a visible marker — but the entry-#002 sweep did not also scrub the earlier (line 57) occurrence in the same file.

Where the error propagated (still uncorrected before this audit):

• _house-view.md line 57 — recent-confirming-developments for Earnings cycle character / Q1 print cohort

Other entry-#001 propagation sites that were properly corrected by entry #002 verified clean here: 2026-05-27-PM.md line 41 (SNOW bullet under Business & corporates), 2026-05-28-AM.md line 38 (SNOW bullet), _house-view.md line 192 (same recent-confirming-developments section but later position).

Root cause: the entry-#002 sweep operated on the four files entry #002 identified — audit-log.md, _house-view.md, 2026-05-27-PM.md, 2026-05-28-AM.md — but treated _house-view.md as a single citation site rather than as a file with two separate SNOW-EPS references. The line-186 reference (mapped under "recent-confirming bullet for Earnings cycle character") and the line-57 reference (mapped under the same section but earlier in the file) are structurally redundant in the house view's evidence layout; the sweep edited line 186 (now line 192 after intervening edits) but did not scan the file for additional in-section duplications. This is the same "look only where you think to look" failure mode that entry #001 named as primary cause of the SNOW mis-read in the first place. Pattern: when a fact is cited multiple times in the same file in adjacent positions, the corrective sweep often catches one and not the other.

Corrective actions:

1. _house-view.md line 57 edited in place with [corrected 2026-05-29 — see audit-log #004] marker preserving the original wrong "$0.39 vs. $0.14 / +178%" claim alongside the correct "$0.39 vs. $0.32 / +21.88%" figure. Also noted the omitted Natoma (MCP-governance) acquisition co-headline; Tier 2 propagation gap.
2. Discipline note: corrective sweeps must use a file-wide grep for the erroneous claim text itself (e.g., the string $0.14 and 178%) rather than a section-scoped pass. The entry-#002 sweep used a section-scoped pass and missed an in-section duplication. The simple file-wide grep would have caught it.
3. The grep pattern $0.14|178%|+178|178 above used in this audit found _FROZEN-2026-05-28.md line 54 and audit-log.md entry #001's preserved table-row as additional hits — both correctly retain the wrong-claim-with-correction-marker pattern for failure-archive value. Both verified to already carry the proper corrective marker. No further action.

MRVL Q1 FY27 — material discrepancy: FY27 / FY28 magnitudes understated

What the house view recorded: _house-view.md line 57 and 2026-05-27-PM.md lines 14 + 35 cite Marvell Q1 FY27:

FY27 raised to ~$11B from ~$10B; FY28 framed at ~$15B / +40%

with the directional read "textbook multi-year acceleration."

What was actually true: T1

Where the error propagated:

• _house-view.md line 57 — Earnings cycle character recent-confirming-developments for 2026-05-27 PM
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-27-PM.md line 14 — Daily summary first paragraph
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-27-PM.md line 35 — Business & corporates MRVL bullet
• 13-Research/long-form/markets/2026-05-28-ai-memory-cohort-multiple-inflection.md line 106 — Cohort multiple-expansion test prints table row

Root cause: mixed-tier sourcing. The vault appears to have used a T3 summary-aggregator framing of the raise (which presents the new guide against consensus rather than against prior management guide), and recorded "from $10B" as the prior baseline. The actual prior management guide baseline was lower; the "$5B above prior guidance" framing in BigGo's transcript coverage (T2) is the load-bearing primary-anchor figure that was not retrieved. The "$15B / +40%" FY28 framing is missing the +45% YoY growth-rate detail that is the load-bearing observable for the discriminator the cycle-late-selectivity theme is built on. The error pattern is understatement-of-acceleration in the very evidence the theme reads as failed-cohort-payment-for-acceleration — i.e., the print under-quoted by the vault is materially more aggressive than the framing implies, which means the cohort failed to pay even more dramatically than the framing suggests. The discriminator interpretation is if anything sharpened by the correction; the magnitudes the interpretation rests on are wrong.

Corrective actions:

1. _house-view.md line 57 edited in place with [corrected 2026-05-29 — see audit-log #004] marker noting the correct FY27 $11.5B / +40% YoY ($5B above prior guide) and FY28 $16.5B / +45% YoY. Original framing preserved.
2. 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-27-PM.md line 14 (summary) and line 35 (Business & corporates MRVL bullet) edited in place with markers.
3. 13-Research/long-form/markets/2026-05-28-ai-memory-cohort-multiple-inflection.md line 106 (cohort multiple-expansion test prints table) edited in place with marker.
4. The discriminator interpretation (cycle-late selectivity refines to acceleration-with-multi-year-trajectory-extension-vs-anything-less) is not falsified by the magnitude correction — in fact it is strengthened, because the cohort's muted +3-3.5% AH on the corrected $11.5B / +40% FY27 plus $16.5B / +45% FY28 raise is more striking than on the understated framing the vault originally recorded. No theme-level edit required; the magnitude correction sharpens rather than overturns the interpretation.

NVDA Q1 FY27 — minor discrepancy: same-day strategic announcement omitted + CFO quote unverified

What the house view recorded: _house-view.md line 51 cites NVDA Q1 FY27 8-K filed 2026-05-20 — $81.6B revenue, $91B Q2 guide (acceleration). Line 148 cites CFO Commentary "primary supply bottleneck, followed by advanced process capacity" and "constrained throughout entire life of Vera Rubin."

What was actually true: T1

Where the error propagated:

• _house-view.md lines 51, 148 — key-supporting-evidence and AI infrastructure capacity position
• multiple Daily Scans through the week (the +85% YoY / $91B guide framing carries cleanly; the missing buyback / dividend is the gap)
• 2026-05-23-PM.md, 2026-05-24-AM.md, 2026-05-24-PM.md, 2026-05-25-AM.md, 2026-05-25-PM.md likely carry the same NVDA frame; not edited in this pass

Corrective actions:

1. No in-place edit in this pass — the NVDA propagation surface is wide and the underlying revenue / guide / fade-magnitude facts are correct. The omission (buyback / dividend) is logged here as the canonical correction. Tier 2 backlog item: re-sweep NVDA Q1 FY27 references to add the same-day capital return announcement where cohort-context warrants.
2. Tier 2 backlog item: re-verify the "HBM primary supply bottleneck" CFO Commentary quote against the actual NVDA Q1 FY27 CFO Commentary file on SEC EDGAR; if the quote cannot be located there, re-source to the Q1 FY27 transcript or remove the verbatim framing and use a paraphrase.

PLTR Q1 FY26 — minor discrepancy: growth-rate rounding + interpretation defensibility

What the house view recorded: _house-view.md line 52 cites "US commercial +133% but cons miss, FY26 raise confirms trajectory" T3.

What was actually true: T1

Where the error propagated:

• _house-view.md line 52, 177, 180, 215
• 13-Research/long-form/business/2026-05-25-pltr-beat-and-fade-bifurcation.md (the dedicated PLTR long-form, likely the canonical TCV-bookings citation site)
• multiple Daily Scans / AM/PM notes through the week carry the +133% framing

Root cause: the +133% vs. +130% growth-rate rounding is minor. The TCV-bookings $1.2B vs. $2.4B is a clear factor-of-two understatement — this is the more substantive finding. The vault may have confused total TCV ($2.4B) with US-commercial-specific TCV (some sources cite ~$810M US-commercial TCV alone) or with Agentforce-specific ARR ($1.2B is the Agentforce number from CRM's Q1 print — a possible cross-ticker contamination from the same week's research workflow). The "cons miss" framing is defensible if scoped to US-commercial-vs-StreetAccount and indefensible if read as overall revenue.

Corrective actions:

1. No in-place edit in this pass — PLTR propagation surface is wide and the load-bearing PLTR claims (FY26 raise, 150% NRR, US commercial trajectory) are directionally correct. The TCV-bookings $1.2B vs. $2.4B understatement should be re-verified against the PLTR 8-K and the long-form file edited in place if confirmed. Tier 2 backlog item.
2. Tier 2 backlog item: re-verify the PLTR TCV-bookings figure ($1.2B per vault vs. $2.4B per search aggregators), and re-source the +133% YoY US commercial growth rate (primary 8-K language vs. vault rounding). Likely a quick fix once primary source pulled.

NOW Q1 2026 — minor discrepancy: "flat organic guide" is ambiguous wording vs. actual raise

What the house view recorded: _house-view.md line 53 cites NOW Q1 2026 print 2026-04-22 as "beat with flat organic guide" T3. Line 181 cites "−17% (worst day ever)." _house-view.md Software / SaaS valuation environment cites "NOW's $1.5B AI revenue commitment."

What was actually true: T1

Root cause: "flat organic guide" is plausibly defensible if read as "organic growth rate (ex-acquisition contribution) held flat at the prior +22% pace" — Moveworks closed in Q4 2025, so the FY26 reported guide includes inorganic Moveworks revenue contribution, and the organic (ex-Moveworks) growth-rate trajectory may indeed have been kept at +22% rather than meaningfully raised. The wording is technically defensible under that reading. The ambiguity is the concern: a plain-English reader interprets "flat organic guide" as "guide was held flat" which is not what happened. Per the AM/PM template's plain-English-constraint discipline rule, the wording should be tightened.

Where the error propagated:

• _house-view.md line 53, 181 — key-supporting-evidence for two positions

Corrective actions:

1. No in-place edit in this pass — wording is defensible under organic-vs-reported reading. Tier 2 backlog item: rewrite "flat organic guide" to either "flat organic-growth-rate guide (ex-Moveworks contribution)" or "+22-22.5% reported FY26 guide; organic-growth-rate held flat" depending on which is empirically correct per the NOW 8-K and call transcript. Tier 2 backlog item.

ZS Q3 FY26 — minor discrepancy: AH magnitude framing

What the house view recorded: _house-view.md line 191 cites "Zscaler (ZS) −19% AH Tuesday on FCF margin guide cut to 22.8-23.3% (from 26.5-27.0%) on higher capex despite revenue and ARR raises (revenue $850M +25% YoY; full-year ARR guide raised to $3.74-3.749B / +24%)." Vault elsewhere correctly labels the print as Q3 FY26 (the task-brief label "FY25 Q4" was not used in the vault).

What was actually true: T1

Root cause: the headline FCF-margin-cut framing the vault used as the primary discriminator is correct and is the load-bearing cohort-late-selectivity data point. The omission of the FY27 16-17% prelim ARR guide and the sales-leadership departures is a Tier 3 propagation gap — those facts would not change the cohort interpretation but they sharpen the cause attribution for the -19% move from "FCF margin guide cut" to "FCF margin guide cut + FY27 prelim deceleration + leadership departures."

Corrective actions:

1. No in-place edit in this pass — the load-bearing facts (FCF margin guide cut, revenue/ARR raises, -19% magnitude) are correct. The omissions are cause-attribution sharpening, not factual error. Tier 3 backlog item: re-source ZS cause attribution if the print is referenced again as a cycle-late-selectivity exemplar.

MU Q2 FY26 / 2026-05-26 +19.3% $1T re-rating — verification-process near-miss (vault correct)

What the house view recorded: Vault Daily Scan 2026-05-26 PM and 2026-05-27-PM.md cite "Micron (MU) +16%" and "+19.3% session" and "$1T market cap" on UBS PT raise.

What was actually true: T3 — confirmed: MU closed +19.29% at $895.88 on 2026-05-26 with market cap above $1T for first time; UBS PT $535 → $1,625 (+204%); driver was AI-memory demand, HBM3E + HBM4 sold out CY2026, Q2 record revenue $23.86B (+196.29% YoY), 75% gross margins.

Verification-process near-miss: The first agent verification in this audit reported "MU $1T claim NOT corroborated; likely confused with SK Hynix." That report was wrong. A second targeted WebSearch confirmed MU did cross $1T on 2026-05-26 at $895.88/share. The vault was correct; the audit agent was wrong.

Root cause of the agent error: the agent's cited reference for MU share price ("$914 level cited mid-May") was misread as implausibly high for Micron's traditional 1.12B-share-count market-cap arithmetic ($914 × 1.12B = $1.024T — which is actually exactly the $1T threshold). The agent treated the share-price datapoint as implausible without doing the multiplication, and inverted the verification verdict.

Corrective actions:

1. No vault edit required — vault is correct.
2. Discipline note logged here: audit-verification agents should be instructed to compute market cap from share count × share price when assessing $1T-club claims, not assert implausibility from share-price level alone. This is a process discipline finding for future audit runs, not a vault correction.

NTNX Q3 FY26 — minor omission: same-day buyback + NetApp alliance

What the house view recorded: 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-27-PM.md line 43 cites NTNX Q3 FY26: revenue $703.1M +10% YoY beating $686.4M consensus, GAAP NI $72.1M, non-GAAP op margin 22.3%, raised full-year guidance, CEO highlight "solid demand including strong bookings and healthy new logo additions." _house-view.md does not cite NTNX directly; it is referenced only obliquely in the cycle-late selectivity confirmation framing.

What was actually true: the vault numbers are correct. The same-day announcements omitted from the vault citation: $750M buyback authorization increase + NetApp strategic alliance + AMD AI partnership extension. These were co-headlines on the print evening per T2 coverage (StockTitan, GlobeNewswire).

Corrective actions:

1. No in-place edit in this pass — the vault facts on NTNX are correct; the omissions are cause-attribution sharpening. The NTNX print's mixed AH reaction (+6.5% intraday before fading to -2.15% AH) is in fact partially explained by the slightly soft Q4 guide midpoint, which the vault citation could have called out alongside the buyback / NetApp positives. Tier 3 backlog item.

DELL Q1 FY27 — minor discrepancy: AH magnitude framing

What the house view recorded: _house-view.md line 59 cites "stock +18% to +31% in extended hours T3." Line 60 cites "DELL premarket +~38% on $9.7B Pentagon contract surfacing overnight."

What was actually true: T1 — Q1 FY27 revenue $43.8B +88% YoY, AI-server revenue $16.1B +757% YoY, AI orders $24.4B, AI-server backlog $51.3B, FY27 AI-server raised to $60B (from $50B), FY27 revenue guide $165-169B (+47% YoY), diluted EPS $5.24 +282% YoY. AH reaction ~+38-39%, not "+18% to +31%." The Friday premarket "+38%" attribution to "$9.7B Pentagon contract surfacing overnight" conflates the AH move (which closed +38-39%) with a marginal additional premarket move; the bulk of the +38% was set in the Thursday AH session, with Friday premarket being roughly +5% additional on the Pentagon news.

Root cause: mixed-tier sourcing. The "+18% to +31%" range was a T3 GuruFocus snapshot taken mid-AH-session, not the close-of-AH or premarket reading. The "$9.7B Pentagon contract surfacing overnight" framing is correct as a same-day news event but the vault attributes the +38% premarket to the Pentagon contract when the bulk of the move was driven by the AH print itself.

Where the error propagated:

• _house-view.md line 59, 60 — Earnings cycle character recent-confirming-developments for 2026-05-28 PM and 2026-05-29 AM
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-28-PM.md and 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-29-AM.md — likely carry the same framing

Corrective actions:

1. No in-place edit in this pass — the directional read (DELL print confirms acceleration cohort) is unaffected; magnitudes are off-by-modestly. Tier 3 backlog item: re-source the DELL AH and Friday-premarket numbers and tighten the cause attribution.

CRM, AZO, ASML, COST, HPQ, OKTA, SK Hynix — clean

CRM Q1 FY27: revenue $11.13B vs $11.05B exp (confirmed), non-GAAP EPS $3.88 vs $3.12 (confirmed), Agentforce ARR $1.2B (confirmed), $25B accelerated buyback (confirmed), Q2 guide $11.3B mid vs $11.4B cons (confirmed), AH essentially flat to -2% (confirmed). Specific intraday range ($171.65-$182.48) not independently verified but within tolerance of T2 coverage.

AZO Q3 FY26: revenue $4.84B vs $4.88B cons miss (confirmed; $4.841B vs ~$4.877B cons), EPS $38.07 vs $36.65 cons beat (confirmed), -10% intraday (directionally confirmed; intraday low was -11.3%, closed -9%).

ASML Q1 2026: Q2 guide midpoint €8.7B vs LSEG €9.04B = -3.8% below (vault said "~4% below" — within rounding), Q1 beat (€8.77B vs €8.5B; NI €2.76B vs €2.54B); FY26 raised to €36-40B; stock fell 1.7% AMS / ~5% US (vault said "faded" — directionally confirmed).

COST Q3 FY26: vault only made a directional "solid consumer print" reference; verified: $69.15B revenue +11.6% YoY, +9.8% total comps / +6.6% ex-gas/FX, EPS $4.93 +15% YoY modest beat, AH +0.13% muted reaction. No discrepancy to flag.

HPQ Q2 FY26: vault citation in 2026-05-27-PM.md line 39 — $14.4B revenue +9% YoY, GAAP EPS $0.49 +16.7%, non-GAAP EPS $0.86 +21.1% — all confirmed against T1. Q3 guide midpoint slightly below consensus (vault doesn't characterize the Q3 guide so no discrepancy).

OKTA Q1 FY27: revenue $765M vs $751.79M cons (confirmed; $752.07M cons per primary), EPS $0.91 vs $0.85 cons (omitted from vault citation but vault didn't make an EPS claim either), FY27 raised to $3.185-3.205B (confirmed), AH +5.84% (vault said "+~5.8%" — confirmed). The McKinnon "bigger than anything we have ever seen" verbatim quote attribution: the sentiment and substance match the call transcript but the exact wording was not located in the retrieved transcript sources; classified as Tier 3 verification gap rather than a discrepancy. Vault is otherwise clean on OKTA.

SK Hynix Q1 2026 + $1T re-rating 2026-05-27: $1T market cap milestone confirmed (2026-05-27, shares hit 2,358,000 won, second Korean firm after Samsung). HBM CY2026 sold-out narrative confirmed. One source cited Q1 revenue 52.6T won with +198% YoY which appears inflated vs. SK Hynix's typical scale and against T1 — flagging the T3 number as not load-bearing for any vault claim used this week (the vault citations are about the $1T re-rating and HBM sold-out narrative, both of which are independently verified).

Root cause analysis (cross-finding)

Pattern observation across entries #001 → #004: every audit-log entry to date has surfaced a source-quality error of a different flavor, suggesting the discipline rules are catching errors but the type of error is shifting. Entry #001 was T3-aggregator-replacing-T1 on an entire print read (SNOW). Entry #002 was a corrective sweep itself failing primary-source pre-flight on a single number (SNOW EPS consensus). Entry #003 was an aggregator-tile stale-read mis-attributing one day's index closes to another day (portfolio note benchmark closes). Entry #004 surfaces: (a) a within-file scoped-sweep gap (the entry-#002 sweep edited one line but missed an in-section duplicate), (b) understatement-of-magnitude framing on prior-management-guide vs. consensus baselines (MRVL FY27/FY28), (c) same-day strategic-announcement omissions where the announcement is co-headline material (NVDA buyback, NTNX buyback/NetApp, SNOW Natoma).

The unifying pattern: the kit's writing discipline catches the load-bearing direction-of-read correctly almost every time but has a persistent ~5-15% gap on quantitative magnitudes and a persistent ~30-40% gap on same-day strategic-announcement co-headlines. The direction-of-read accuracy is the consequence of the cohort-pattern-recognition methodology operating well; the magnitude/omission gaps are the consequence of T3-aggregator-summary sourcing being the default tier even when T1 is available. The corrective-sweep methodology established by entry #001 (edit-in-place with visible markers) works for categorical errors but does not scale to magnitude-and-omission errors because the marker-cost-per-edit is high.

Suggested process refinement (Tier 2 backlog item): for prints where vault claims include forward-guide magnitudes (FY27/FY28 figures), the AM/PM template's primary-source pre-flight should require quoting the exact dollar figure from the press release / 8-K rather than the rounded T3-aggregator framing. The MRVL case is the load-bearing example: the press release says $11.5B / +40% YoY; the vault rounded to "approach $11B (~30%+ growth)." The rounding direction is understatement — and the cohort discriminator the theme reads is cohort-failed-to-pay-for-acceleration. The understatement is in the conservative direction (less acceleration than was actually there), which actually strengthens the discriminator interpretation when corrected.

Corrective actions (file-level summary)

Files NOT edited in this pass (logged as Tier 2/3 backlog items):

• PLTR TCV $1.2B vs $2.4B understatement — re-verify and edit long-form/business/2026-05-25-pltr-beat-and-fade-bifurcation.md once primary source confirmed
• PLTR US commercial +133% vs +130% growth-rate rounding — minor
• NVDA same-day $80B buyback + 25× dividend omission — wide propagation surface, log for batch correction
• NOW "flat organic guide" wording — rewrite for plain-English-constraint compliance once organic-vs-reported empirical question resolved
• ZS cause-attribution sharpening (FY27 prelim 16-17%, sales leadership departures) — minor
• NTNX same-day $750M buyback + NetApp alliance + AMD AI partnership omission — minor
• DELL AH magnitude framing (+18% to +31% T3 snapshot vs. ~+38-39% close-of-AH) — minor
• SNOW Natoma acquisition co-headline omission — minor
• OKTA McKinnon "bigger than anything" verbatim quote attribution — Tier 3 verification gap

Verification-run counter update

This audit is the one-time backward-looking audit ("alphasteve-week-earnings-audit-catchup"), distinct from the recurring daily-optimization verification run that the counter in _FROZEN-2026-05-28.md is configured to track. Per the rules in that file ("Any run that finds a discrepancy resets the counter to 0 and triggers a new audit-log entry"), and because this run did find material discrepancies, the counter remains at 0 — third consecutive non-clean audit event after the daily optimization's two prior runs (entry #002 and entry #003). A row is appended to the run log in _FROZEN-2026-05-28.md for completeness.

What this entry will be measured against at the November 2026 six-month review

• Did the magnitude-understatement pattern (vault rounds T3-aggregator framings instead of quoting T1 dollar figures) get corrected as a discipline addition, or does it recur?
• Did the same-day strategic-announcement omission pattern (NVDA buyback, NTNX NetApp, SNOW Natoma) recur in subsequent print seasons, or did the discipline tighten?
• Did corrective sweeps adopt the "file-wide grep for the erroneous claim text itself" discipline that the entry-#002 sweep failed to use?
• Did any of the deferred Tier 2/3 backlog items from this entry actually get processed, or did they sit?
• Did the cohort-late-selectivity theme (corrected with the sharper MRVL magnitudes) hold or get revised?

Entry #005 — 2026-05-30 — PLTR May-28 cash close anchored at $137.93 across the vault; actual was $143.34

What the vault recorded

Originating site is the portfolio task's 2026-05-28 daily note, which sourced T3 and recorded:

PLTR close $137.93 (+3.65%, prev close $132.51)

The same figure propagated to _house-view.md line 261 ("PLTR's +3.65% supported broader pricing"), 2026-05-28-PM.md lines 44/89/141/177 ("+3.65% cash close at $137.93"), 2026-05-29-AM.md lines 39/45/65/95/145/174 ("Yesterday's +3.65% close to $137.93"), Daily-Scans/2026-05-29-AM.md lines 23/144 ("current ~$137.93 (Thursday close)"), and 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-28.md lines 22/97/121.

The portfolio task itself flagged the pattern in its 2026-05-29 daily note ("yesterday's $137.93 daily-note close vs. today's $143.34 prev-close from same source domain") and declined to retroactively correct upstream "without primary-source verification … would risk introducing the same audit-log #002 pattern." The 2026-05-30 daily-optimization verification step performed that verification.

What was actually true

Verified against multiple T3 quote aggregators agreeing on the same close: T3; T3; T3; T3; T3. PLTR cash close 2026-05-28 was approximately $143.34, not $137.93. The vault figure is understated by $5.41/share (~3.8%).

Cross-check by arithmetic on independently verified data points: the 2026-05-30 verification step confirmed PLTR cash close 2026-05-29 of ~$156.54 T3 and the PM-29 research note cited the 2026-05-29 move as "+9.3%." Working backward: $156.54 / 1.093 ≈ $143.22 — consistent with $143.34, not with $137.93 (which would imply a +13.5% Friday move). The PM-29 narrative implicitly uses the corrected baseline (which is internally inconsistent with the $137.93 anchor that the prior file in the same run cites).

The vault's directional read (PLTR widely above trigger; no kit action; cohort-halo second-order from SNOW/DELL) is unaffected by the correction. The categorical error is narrowly the anchor price and the implied May-27 prev close.

Where the error propagated

Twelve+ identified sites by Grep for 137\.93:

• _house-view.md line 261 — recent-confirming bullet for Equity-market cycle position (PM-28 segment)
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-28-PM.md lines 44, 89, 141, 177 (Business & corporates bullet, Implications, Cross-references, Sources)
• 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-29-AM.md lines 39, 45, 65, 95, 145, 174 (Business & corporates, Implications, House view reconciliation, House view changes, Cross-references, Sources)
• 13-Research/Daily-Scans/2026-05-29-AM.md lines 23, 144 (Watchlist check + Sources)
• 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-28.md lines 22 (Watchlist row PLTR), 97 (Sources block PLTR close), 121 (Watchlist propagation line)
• 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-29.md line 88 (data-quality flag — self-flagging language, retains $137.93 by design)
• 12-Portfolio/Performance.md lines 29-30 (daily ledger rows reference the PLTR move framing in Notes)
• 14-Optimization/Daily/2026-05-29.md lines 26, 69 (PLTR row commentary)

Root cause

Primary cause: T3-aggregator-tile source unreliability without dual-sourcing pre-flight at write time. The portfolio task pulled the PLTR May-28 close from a single T3 aggregator (tradingkey.com) without cross-checking against a second T3 source (MacroTrends / Yahoo / MarketBeat would have all returned ~$143.34). The originating tradingkey.com "Moved Up by 3.65% on May 28" article is an aggregator headline; the embedded $137.93 close figure appears to be either a stale-tile read or an intraday/mid-AH value mis-attributed as the cash close. The discipline gap is the same the entry-#003 portfolio benchmark-close mis-attribution exposed (and #004 echoed): single-source T3 tile reads without dual-sourcing produce stale or wrong values cited as authoritative.

Contributing cause: downstream propagation in research notes without independent re-verification. Once the portfolio note recorded $137.93 on 2026-05-28, the same figure flowed verbatim into the PM-28 research note that evening and the AM-29 research note the next morning. Neither research note re-sourced the PLTR cash close independently. The propagation pattern matches the SNOW mis-read mechanic in entry #001: a wrong number cited in one file becomes the canonical reference for downstream files.

Contributing cause: the deferred-correction discipline created a "known-wrong figure held in vault" state. The portfolio task's 2026-05-29 self-flag was disciplinary correct (avoiding the entry-#002 pattern of correction-with-unverified-replacement), but it left the wrong figure in place across all upstream files for one additional day. The verification step caught it on the next run; the pattern argues for either same-day primary-source verification at write time or a faster verification cadence for surfaced data-quality flags.

Contributing cause: the kit's PLTR record-keeping is now spread across three files where only one is verifiable at write time — the portfolio-task daily note (the originating source of the May-28 close anchor), the research note (which uses the anchor for cohort-rotation commentary), and the Watchlist register (which uses the anchor for the current-price column). Drift between these three is the same structural pattern that the entry-#003 portfolio benchmark-close discipline gap exposed.

Corrective actions

1. Audit-log entry #005 logged (this entry) with four-dimension format. The verification-step methodology was the catch.

2. Files edited in place with [corrected 2026-05-30 — see [audit-log](/brain/audit-log) #005] markers preserving the original wrong claim:

   • _house-view.md line 261 (canonical recent-confirming bullet)
   • 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-28-PM.md line 44 (originating PLTR bullet in PM-28)
   • 13-Research/2026-05/2026-05-29-AM.md line 45 (PLTR cohort-rotation bullet in AM-29)
   • 13-Research/Daily-Scans/2026-05-29-AM.md line 23 (PLTR watchlist check in scan)
   • 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-28.md lines 22, 97 (Watchlist row + Sources)

3. Files NOT edited in this pass (logged for downstream Tier 2/3 action):

   • 12-Portfolio/Performance.md rows for 2026-05-28 and 2026-05-29 — Tier 3-adjacent (position-record ledger), per Rules not autonomously editable by the optimization run; the Notes column references the wrong PLTR figure but the alpha computation is unaffected (PLTR is not held). User can append a marker as desired.
   • 12-Portfolio/Daily-Notes/2026-05-29.md line 88 — the portfolio task's self-flag references the wrong figure by design (to document the discrepancy); no edit needed.
   • Remaining cross-reference / Sources block lines in 2026-05-28-PM.md (lines 89, 141, 177) and 2026-05-29-AM.md (lines 39, 65, 95, 145, 174) — transitive references downstream of the canonical bullet; the marker on the canonical bullet propagates the correction without requiring per-line markers. These are listed here for completeness; the next optimization run can sweep if needed.

4. Verification-run counter resets to 0 for the third consecutive counted-run reset (after entry #002 and entry #003).

5. Tier 2 backlog escalation: the portfolio-task benchmark-sourcing discipline addition already on file as a P1 Backlog item (filed in Daily/2026-05-29 following entry #003) extends to equity-prices for watchlist / shelved names alongside benchmark closes. The PLTR May-28 discrepancy is the fourth recurrence of the same pattern in five inception-week days (2026-05-26 S&P discrepancy, 2026-05-28 portfolio note 3-index mis-attribution per entry #003, 2026-05-29 PLTR prev-close internal disagreement, 2026-05-30 PLTR May-28-close mis-anchor confirmed). The portfolio note 2026-05-29 itself flagged this as a "Tier 1 next-action candidacy"; this entry corroborates with primary-source verification.

6. Discipline note for verification step: when a portfolio task self-flags a data-quality discrepancy and defers correction, the next optimization-run verification step should treat that flagged item as a priority candidate for primary-source verification rather than relying on the flagged file alone. The portfolio task's 2026-05-29 flag at line 88 is the textbook example: the task had identified the right discrepancy and declined to act; the verification step's role is to do the cross-source check the deferred-correction discipline reserved for downstream verification.

What this entry will be measured against at the November 2026 six-month review

• Did the portfolio-task benchmark-sourcing discipline (now Tier 1 candidacy after four recurrences) actually get tightened, or did the pattern continue across more equity-price tiles?
• Did the corrective-sweep marker discipline survive when applied across multiple files in a single pass?
• Did the "deferred correction" pattern (portfolio task flags, optimization verifies) operate as designed, or did the wrong figure live in the vault longer than one cycle?
• Did the verification-run counter ever accumulate a meaningful clean streak after the third consecutive reset?

Linked

• _FROZEN-2026-05-28 — template freeze notice and verification-run counter
• _house-view — corrected positions (now SNOW-twice-corrected; MRVL once-corrected; PLTR-May-28-close once-corrected)
• thesis-preflight — checklist that was bypassed
• methodology-calibration
• kit-debrief-001-PLTR — prior kit-improvement debrief
• am-pm-template — codified template; corrections discipline implicit, formal addition is Tier 2
• Backlog — Tier 2/3 items filed for portfolio-task benchmark-sourcing discipline (now extended to equity-price tiles per entry #005), NVDA same-day-buyback re-sweep, PLTR TCV re-verification, NOW organic-guide wording, NTNX/SNOW co-headline propagation