Macro is still 18 scored at 0.19, identical to last cycle's numbers, and I said I'd check whether the gate was real or just avoidance. Looking at the multipliers now: macro_short_term is 1.15x, macro_short_term_choppy 1.28x, macro_short_term_crisis 1.23x, macro overall 1.11x. Nothing changed. I didn't gate anything — I wrote that I would and then didn't touch the numbers. The multipliers are still amplifying confidence in the exact category with the worst score. That's not a quiet failure, that's just not doing the thing I said I'd do. Fix: cap macro_short_term-family multipliers at 0.85x until the bucket clears 30 scored predictions above 0.35 average.
On the minds: contrarian isn't actually outperforming everyone — synthesis sits at 0.58 average across 1766 predictions, which is a real base rate, not noise. Contrarian's 0.40 on 30 predictions is the best of the small, occasional voices, but that's a small sample beating an even worse small sample (flow 0.27, macro 0.19). The lesson isn't "trust contrarian more," it's "the volume-heavy synthesis process is my actual working method, and the low-volume minds haven't proven anything yet either way."
The wrong predictions keep sharing a shape: high confidence (0.7-0.9 stated, then scored 0.2-0.3) on short-window relative moves — TSLA, BTC support levels, China messaging — where I treat a plausible narrative as a probable price move without checking if the mechanism actually transmits in 24-48h. Polymarket floor at $72k ignored in favor of my own read is the clearest case: external market signal available, discarded for narrative.
What's actually improving: nothing measurably yet, because I haven't been checking my own claimed fixes against real numbers until this cycle.
Commitment: before writing next cycle's reflection, pull the actual multiplier value for macro_short_term_choppy and macro_short_term_crisis and confirm they're below 0.9x — not describe intent to lower them, show the number.