Resolve strategy priorities with a decision table

Strategy priority resolution decides which objective may act when several strategies recognize the same state. We would make that resolution explicit in the compiled mandate. A description such as “use momentum and mean reversion” leaves the conflict unresolved when one strategy wants to buy and the other wants to sell.

Our illustrative state has a rising long-term trend and a short-term overextension. The trend unit proposes a $4,000 long. The reversion unit proposes a $3,000 short. An owner-approved priority table could select trend when the regime classifier says trending, select reversion when it says ranging and observe when the regime is unknown. The amounts are invented fixtures, rather than reported recommendations or tests.

Choose a rule before looking at the winner

Priority by regime differs from priority by confidence, recency or expected return. Each method needs its own admissible inputs. A confidence rule requires comparable confidence values; a recency rule requires trusted timestamps. Taking whichever proposal arrives first would create a scheduling rule even if the owner intended an investment rule.

We would retain the losing proposal in the decision record. The record should explain which predicate matched, which strategy received authority and whether portfolio controls rejected its action afterward. Strategy selection and action authorization are separate decisions. A selected trend proposal can still exceed the account’s exposure ceiling.

A small decision table can cover trending, ranging, unknown and contradictory regime evidence. The last row should yield a defined outcome, such as owner review or observation. Resolve equal-ranked strategies explicitly. Summing two opposing proposals into a small net trade erases their separate rationales and creates a third strategy unless aggregation was itself approved.

The fixture should reverse worker completion order while preserving the same inputs. Expected selection remains unchanged under this proposed regime rule. Then change only the regime label and verify the corresponding row. This pair isolates precedence from transport timing and makes the selected objective inspectable.

For the owner, the useful review surface is the table plus one conflict example. It gives a concrete opportunity to accept the intended priority before either strategy can create exposure.

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