Drawdown-precursor forward-edge

The question

Do cross-asset stress patterns — volatility-of-volatility, credit spreads, the yield curve, commodities, funding plumbing, and crypto — lead broad equity drawdowns? A family of independent early-warning hypotheses.

How it was tested

The hypothesis, its exact trigger, the outcome it predicts, and the pass/fail bar were written down and cryptographically hash-locked before any data was tested, then held through a mandatory cooling-off period. The backfill ran exactly once against those frozen parameters — no re-tuning, no curve-fitting — using adversarial statistics (stationary-bootstrap confidence intervals, multiple-testing correction, purged cross-validation with an embargo, and walk-forward out-of-sample splits). The specific trigger thresholds are proprietary and omitted here.

The outcome

RAN 2026-06-10 → NOISE. episodes 39 (OOS 14) | base 21.2% cond 20.3% uplift 0.96× [0.55,1.53] | FPR 80%>50% | lead-not-coincident 57% | VIX/HY-clean uplift 0.95× | purged 2/5. precursorScore≥4 does NOT lead equity DD = the honest-prior small-crypto-sample base case. LIVE drawdown-precursor-monitor daily observability cron (e934552) UNAFFECTED — stays as regime context, just no forward-edge claim. data/backfill/drawdown_precursor_2026-06-10.json. Rule #10: no iterate.

The backfill ran and the hypothesis failed its pre-registered bar. It is recorded and retired — not re-tested without a fresh, separately-registered hypothesis.