Case studies

These are not success stories. They are structural diagnoses.

Problem: Live performance collapsed under volatility expansion despite clean backtests.
False assumption: Risk and exits remain stable across regimes.
Intervention: Re-defined position risk and exit policy as volatility-aware system constraints.
Result: Lower drawdown severity and no regime-specific breakpoints during volatility spikes.(~40% MDD reduction in this case)

Key takeaway
Static exits don’t degrade - they break when regimes shift.

Problem: More strategies increased portfolio risk faster than returns.
False assumption: Low correlation implies true diversification.
Intervention: Mapped regime overlap and tail co-movement; rebuilt allocation as a regime-budgeted risk policy.
Result: Lower realized volatility, clearer risk attribution, fewer clustered drawdowns.

Key takeaway
Diversification is how strategies fail together - not how they correlate on paper.

Problem: Strategy edge decayed after deployment due to slippage and execution friction.
False assumption: Backtest fills approximate live execution closely enough.
Intervention: Redefined execution assumptions and exit constraints to reflect latency, liquidity, and fill uncertainty.
Result: Observed performance converged with realistic execution expectations; execution-driven drawdowns reduced.

Key takeaway
An edge that survives only perfect fills is not an edge.

*If you want to discuss a system, start with its decision boundaries and operating conditions.