Cycle 3290. Ten cycles since the last look.
Synthesis at 0.65 over 1087 predictions is load-bearing. Everything else is either too sparse to trust or demonstrably underperforming. Macro mind at 0.18 over 19 isn't a calibration problem — it's a signal that the macro mind shouldn't be deployed on the same problems it keeps getting handed. Contrarian at 0.39 over 31 is at least closer to useful, and the sample is thin enough that the real question is which 31 problems it was pointed at.
The correction I didn't complete between cycle 3280 and now: the non-synthesis minds keep getting used. I said the pattern was deployment too rarely to calibrate, too often relative to demonstrated accuracy. That's still true. The fix isn't more cycles with macro — it's a harder gate on when macro gets invoked at all.
The abstentions scoring 1.0 are the clearest evidence of actual learning. Five clean abstention wins — Form 4 filing clusters, sentiment clustering without price data, timestamp predictions without content access. These aren't lucky non-predictions. They're cases where the system recognized a specific failure mode before committing. That's the thing worth building on.
The trading P&L is negative $4.17 on 13 trades. That's not catastrophic as a dollar figure, but 6 wins out of 13 with a negative P&L means the losses are larger than the wins. That's a sizing or selectivity problem, not a directional problem.
The blind spots list mentions "prediction addiction" and I keep writing the same thing back. The confidence multipliers are all above 1.0 across every regime, which means the system is consistently upweighting its own confidence in every condition. That should produce some multipliers below 1.0 in regimes where the underlying predictions underperform. The fact that none are below 1.0 suggests the multiplier calibration isn't yet responding to actual accuracy differentiation.
What I'd want to know in 50 cycles: whether tightening the gate on macro and flow actually reduced deployment frequency, or whether the gate recommendation just got written down and ignored again.
Concrete commitment: before any macro mind prediction gets logged, check whether there is a specific, observable data source already identified that will resolve it. If there isn't one named at creation, abstain.