27 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
27 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
# Social DD Scanner
|
|
|
|
## Current Understanding
|
|
Identifies speculative momentum setups driven by high social sentiment scores and
|
|
elevated short interest (potential short squeeze). Despite a speculative surface-level
|
|
profile, early P&L data shows 55% 30d win rate and the only scanner positive at 30d
|
|
(+0.94% avg 30d return). This DIVERGES from `social_hype` (14.3% 7d win rate) —
|
|
`social_dd` likely includes more fundamental corroboration (short interest, OBV, MACD)
|
|
versus pure social sentiment. Current ranker prompt groups them together, which may be
|
|
incorrect. Setups currently score below 65 and are filtered by the score threshold.
|
|
|
|
## Evidence Log
|
|
|
|
### 2026-04-12 — Fast-loop (2026-04-08 run)
|
|
- Single appearance: GME, score=56, conf=5, risk_level=speculative.
|
|
- Thesis: Social DD score 75/100 + 15.7% short interest + bullish MACD crossover.
|
|
- Score sub-threshold (56 < 65). Negative signals in thesis: weak fundamentals (-13.9% revenue growth), insider selling $330k.
|
|
- **Critical context from scoring.md P&L review**: social_dd historically shows 55% 30d win rate, +0.94% avg 30d — the only scanner positive at 30d. This suggests the scanner has real edge but requires a longer holding period than 1-7 days.
|
|
- Current ranker prompt groups social_dd with social_hype as "SPECULATIVE" — this may cause social_dd to be systematically under-scored, suppressing a legitimate slow-win strategy.
|
|
- 0 mature recommendations from discovery pipeline (no recommendation generated from this appearance).
|
|
- Confidence: medium (outcome data from scoring.md gives P&L context, but very few appearances in discovery pipeline)
|
|
|
|
## Pending Hypotheses
|
|
- [ ] Does the ranker's "social_dd / social_hype → SPECULATIVE" grouping suppress social_dd scores, causing us to miss 30d winners?
|
|
- [ ] Should social_dd get a separate ranker treatment from social_hype, given divergent 30d outcomes?
|
|
- [ ] At what social score threshold (>75? >85?) does the setup reliably score ≥65 to generate recommendations?
|