From 04d686a71d9f34cc77a6af7a21cf9b8afc75b8fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: mindesbunister <github_service@egonetix.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:35:10 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?docs:=20update=20quality=20score=20threshold=20?=
 =?UTF-8?q?65=E2=86=9260=20based=20on=20data?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

CHANGE: MIN_QUALITY_SCORE lowered from 65 to 60

REASON: Data analysis of 161 trades showed score 60-64 tier
significantly outperformed higher quality scores:
- 60-64: 2 trades, +$45.78 total, 100% WR, +$22.89 avg/trade
- 65-69: 13 trades, +$28.28 total, 53.8% WR, +$2.18 avg/trade

PARADOX DISCOVERED: Higher quality scores don't correlate with
better trading results in current data. Stricter 65 threshold
was blocking profitable 60-64 range setups.

EXPECTED IMPACT:
- 2-3 additional trades per week in 60-64 quality range
- Estimated +$46-69 weekly profit potential based on avg
- Enables blocked signal collection at 55-59 range for Phase 2
- Win rate should remain 50%+ (60-64 tier is 100%, 65-69 is 53.8%)

RISK MANAGEMENT:
- Small sample size (2 trades at 60-64) could be outliers
- Downside limited - can raise back to 65 if performance degrades
- Will monitor first 10 trades at new threshold closely

Added as Common Pitfall #25 with full SQL analysis details.

Updated references in Mission section and Signal Quality System
description to reflect new 60+ threshold.
---
 .github/copilot-instructions.md | 16 ++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/.github/copilot-instructions.md b/.github/copilot-instructions.md
index a06cc60..c1ca093 100644
--- a/.github/copilot-instructions.md
+++ b/.github/copilot-instructions.md
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
 **Key Constraints:**
 - Can't afford extended drawdowns (limited capital)
 - Must maintain 60%+ win rate to compound effectively
-- Quality over quantity - only trade 70+ signal quality scores
+- Quality over quantity - only trade 60+ signal quality scores (lowered from 65 on Nov 12, 2025)
 - After 3 consecutive losses, STOP and review system
 
 ## Architecture Overview
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
 - BTC and other symbols fall back to global settings (`MAX_POSITION_SIZE_USD`, `LEVERAGE`)
 - **Priority:** Per-symbol ENV → Market config → Global ENV → Defaults
 
-**Signal Quality System:** Filters trades based on 5 metrics (ATR, ADX, RSI, volumeRatio, pricePosition) scored 0-100. Only trades scoring 60+ are executed. Scores stored in database for future optimization.
+**Signal Quality System:** Filters trades based on 5 metrics (ATR, ADX, RSI, volumeRatio, pricePosition) scored 0-100. Only trades scoring 60+ are executed (lowered from 65 after data analysis showed 60-64 tier outperformed higher scores). Scores stored in database for future optimization.
 
 **Timeframe-Aware Scoring:** Signal quality thresholds adjust based on timeframe (5min vs daily):
 - 5min: ADX 12+ trending (vs 18+ for daily), ATR 0.2-0.7% healthy (vs 0.4%+ for daily)
@@ -891,6 +891,18 @@ trade.realizedPnL += actualRealizedPnL  // NOT: result.realizedPnL from SDK
     - Must update `CreateTradeParams` interface when adding new database fields (see pitfall #21)
     - Analytics endpoint `/api/analytics/version-comparison` compares v5 vs v6 performance
 
+25. **Signal quality threshold adjustment (Nov 12, 2025):**
+    - **Lowered from 65 → 60** based on data analysis of 161 trades
+    - **Reason:** Score 60-64 tier outperformed higher scores:
+      - 60-64: 2 trades, +$45.78 total, 100% WR, +$22.89 avg
+      - 65-69: 13 trades, +$28.28 total, 53.8% WR, +$2.18 avg
+      - 70-79: 67 trades, +$8.28 total, 44.8% WR (worst performance!)
+    - **Paradox:** Higher quality scores don't correlate with better performance in current data
+    - **Expected impact:** 2-3 additional trades/week, +$46-69 weekly profit potential
+    - **Data collection:** Enables blocked signals at 55-59 range for Phase 2 optimization
+    - **Risk:** Small sample size (2 trades) could be outliers, but downside limited
+    - SQL analysis showed clear pattern: stricter filtering was blocking profitable setups
+
 ## File Conventions
 
 - **API routes:** `app/api/[feature]/[action]/route.ts` (Next.js 15 App Router)