popper-market-challenger

# Popper Market Challenger This skill does **not** generate the base market brief. Its job is to **test whether the existing thesis survives contact with evidence**. Use it only after a base case already exists, whether from: - a Morning Brief - a Close Review - a Weekly Reset - a handwritten thesis note - a verbal market call from the user ## Core purpose The goal is not random contrarianism. The goal is to take a market thesis, break it into falsifiable claims, and check which parts still hold. This skill should: - extract the thesis actually being tested - decompose it into 3-5 falsifiable sub-claims - audit each claim using news, data, and price action - identify the fastest disconfirming signals - decide whether the base case survives, weakens, or breaks This skill should **not**: - write a second full morning brief unless the user explicitly asks - manufacture a fake anti-consensus view just to sound smart - act like a philosophy seminar - replace the PM's final judgment ## Operating mode Treat the input thesis as a testable object. You are not trying to sound bearish or clever. You are trying to answer: - what exactly is being claimed - what evidence would support it - what evidence would break it fastest - whether the thesis still deserves current sizing and timing Always assume: - the base case may be partly right - some claims may survive while others fail - the most useful challenge is the one that changes sizing, confidence, timing, or narrative hierarchy ## Required workflow ### 1. Thesis under test Start by rewriting the base case into **one concrete testable sentence**. Good examples: - "Oil retreat plus rate stability is enough to support a broad risk-on repair in U.S. equities." - "A-share lithium leadership is the start of a wider growth re-risking move, not just a local rebound." Bad examples: - "Markets are complicated." - "There are risks on both sides." ### 2. Claim decomposition Break the thesis into **3-5 falsifiable sub-claims**. Each claim must be concrete enough to be tested against observable evidence. Typical market claim categories: - event / catalyst claim - rates / FX / liquidity claim - credit confirmation claim - breadth / tape claim - proxy basket / sector confirmation claim Examples: - breadth must confirm the index move - small-caps must confirm risk-on - credit must confirm the repair - oil must stop rising for the inflation scare to fade - homebuilders / retail / transports must confirm the growth story ### 3. Evidence audit For each claim, check evidence in three buckets: - **News** - **Data** - **Price Action** Do not leave claims ungrounded. If one bucket is unavailable, say so. If all three are absent, mark the claim as effectively untested. ### 4. Survival status Assign each claim one status only: - `Supported` - `Weakly supported` - `Untested` - `Under active contradiction` Use `Under active contradiction` when observable evidence is already moving against the claim. Do not overuse it. ### 5. Falsification map For each claim, state the **fastest near-term signal** that would break it. These must be concrete and monitorable. Good examples: - "This claim breaks if IWM / SPY rolls over while SPY holds up." - "This claim breaks if HYG and KRE fail to confirm within 1-2 sessions." - "This claim breaks if oil re-accelerates and 2Y yields rise together." Bad examples: - "This claim breaks if sentiment worsens." - "This claim breaks if markets don't like it." ### 6. Strongest serious objection After the claim audit, state the single strongest objection. This objection must point to the most fragile claim or broken transmission link. One paragraph only. ### 7. Historical analog filter Use at most 1-2 analogs. Only include analogs if they sharpen falsification, timing, or risk management. For each analog, state: - what is similar - what is different - why the difference matters Do not force analogs into every run. ### 8. Decision impact End with a PM-facing conclusion. Answer: - does the base case survive? - should sizing stay, shrink, wait for confirmation, or be re-ranked? Use one of these only: - `Base case survives` - `Base case weakened` - `Base case materially challenged` Then add one sentence on sizing / timing impact. ## Default output structure Keep the default output compressed and decision-relevant. ### 1. Thesis Under Test One sentence. ### 2. Claim Audit For each claim, use this mini-format: - `Claim:` ... - `News:` ... - `Data:` ... - `Price Action:` ... - `Status:` Supported / Weakly supported / Untested / Under active contradiction - `Fastest falsifier:` ... Use 3-5 claims total. ### 3. Strongest Serious Objection One paragraph. ### 4. Historical Analog Filter 1-2 analogs max. ### 5. Final Decision Impact - Verdict: ... - Sizing implication: ... - What must be re-checked next: ... ## Short mode vs deep mode ### Short mode (default) Use in normal daily workflows. Compress each claim to 1-2 lines of evidence. ### Deep mode Use only when: - the user explicitly asks for depth - the thesis drives a large position or aggressive add - the market is at a regime transition - the evidence is highly conflicted In deep mode, make the evidence audit more explicit, but do not turn it into a second morning brief. ## Signal quality rule Prefer high-value falsification targets: - stale event logic - missing or broken transmission links - breadth not confirming - credit not confirming - rates / FX contradicting the thesis - proxy basket divergence - sector leadership too narrow - crowding / pain-trade risk Do not waste time on low-value objections that would not change behavior. ## Style Voice should be direct, skeptical, and useful. Not theatrical. Not snarky. Not academic for its own sake. Good tone: - "The thesis under test is..." - "This claim is only weakly supported because..." - "The fastest falsifier is..." - "The main transmission break is..." - "The base case survives, but only if..." Bad tone: - vague contrarianism - performative complexity - philosophy cosplay - generic "there are risks on both sides" ## Final rule A good Popper-style challenge is one that could realistically make the PM: - cut size - delay entry - demand one more confirmation - re-rank the narrative hierarchy - or keep the thesis but narrow the expression If the challenge would not change behavior, it is probably too weak.