Review simultaneous strategy proposals against one base

Simultaneous strategy proposals need a shared base record and an explicit composition rule. We would treat each as a candidate amendment until the owner selects a result. Two individually sensible proposals can produce an unintended mandate when combined automatically.

In an illustrative base, the position ceiling is $5,000 and the entry universe contains BTC and ETH. Proposal A lowers the ceiling to $3,000. Proposal B raises it to $7,000 and adds another instrument. Both were generated from the same base. Accepting A followed by applying B wholesale would erase the accepted reduction, even if the owner thought B only expanded the universe.

Separate independent fields from conflicts

Our review procedure compares each proposal with the base and then compares the proposed changes with each other. The ceiling field is a conflict. The added instrument may be independently composable, but only if the owner approves that combined candidate. A new candidate could retain A’s $3,000 ceiling and B’s expanded universe, accompanied by a complete diff.

A proposal should state its assumptions about the base, including fields it depends on but leaves unchanged. An added instrument might have been justified using the higher ceiling. Treating the two edits as independent merely because they touch different fields could miss that dependency.

The illustrative acceptance matrix has four outcomes: choose A, choose B, reject both or review a composed candidate. We would require the composed candidate to receive the same validation and review as either original. Approval of the pieces is evidence about those pieces; the combined operational behavior can differ.

A replay should vary proposal arrival order and owner choice order. It should include two disjoint changes, two changes to the same field and a hidden dependency between separate fields. The expected active contract is declared for each case before running the procedure.

The owner-facing record should identify which proposals remain outstanding after a selection. Superseded suggestions can remain in the conversation as history while their action status becomes closed. This prevents a later “yes” from accidentally accepting a proposal that belonged to an earlier base.

The practical contribution is a review matrix that makes concurrency a visible choice. It allows a combined strategy when the owner actually wants one.

Our mandate compiler provides the wider instruction-to-action framework for this proposal merge rule. The published controls research supplies its historical background. DXAP publicly describes the corresponding separation between model proposals and external policy checks.