Skip to content

Analytics Labs — Variant Attribution

Same branch, different management — which one earns?

How MARS uses this

MARS never trusts a single blended figure. Weekly branch probabilities produce a separate EV per branch, weighted by the live profile (45 / 33.75 / 11.25 / 10 by default) into the blend. Reviews read the decomposition first: which branch produced the edge, which one leaked it, and whether the weights still match the evidence.

How it benefits you

You stop repairing the wrong thing. When results dip, the decomposition shows whether the whole system weakened or one branch is dragging - so you fix a branch instead of overhauling a working system, and you spot a single strong branch masking weakness everywhere else.

+0.0R+0.2R+0.4R+0.6R+0.38RNORMALweight 45%+0.51RTREND PARTIALweight 33.75%+0.64RTREND NO-PARTIALweight 11.25%+0.22ROVERFLOWweight 10%BRANCH EV — ILLUSTRATIVE WEEK · BLENDED EV = Σ (weight × branch EV)

Branch-level EV decomposition with blend weights. The blended number alone would hide exactly this picture.

The key idea

The seven-lens permission test

A variant is valid only when the lenses agree.

From the Branch Variant Selection Matrix: EV lens (does expectancy justify the management style?), Drawdown/Gate lens (gate always wins), SDE lens (is structure improving?), Volatility/ATR lens (clean continuation or chaos?), Structure lens (trending, compressing, rotating?), Execution-Quality lens (do MAE/MFE/capture/fees support it?), and Regime/Variance lens (is the machine stable enough for expansion logic?).

The checkpoint ladder

Hit flags explain the EV.

0.75R and 1.25R test Time-Conservative banking. 1.3R tests whether delaying first protection actually works. 1.4R tests the Exposure-Conservative bank. 1.6R is the trend unlock. 1.8R tests TNP's delayed trail activation. 2R/2.5R/3R+ diagnose right-tail preservation — are aggressive variants preserving upside or destroying expectancy?

  • Rollups: variant count, Avg R by variant, Total R, EV share %, variant-vs-Standard ratio, net R after fees, capture/giveback by variant.
  • Variant does not choose the branch. Branch identity comes first; variants tune management inside it.

Failure modes

03

The matrix is a rail, not a menu.

Using Time-Aggressive because the setup 'feels strong' replaces evidence with feeling. Turning Normal into a trend trade after entry is identity drift. Overusing Time-Conservative in clean trends under-monetizes the right tail. TNP aggression must be earned through quota, EV, SDE, gate, and ATR evidence — never through emotional acceleration.

Worked example

The MARS operating loop: execute, capture, score, gate, throttle, deploy - every cycle feeding evidence into the next.

EXECUTEclearance + entryCAPTUREevidence + journalSCOREweekly EV gradeGATEcapital stateTHROTTLEdeployment mathDEPLOYgoverned riskEVIDENCEevery cycle feeds the next

Before you go deeper

Inside this module

3 pages go deeper than this one.

Connected inside MARS

This module doesn't work alone.

Go deeper

Operator briefs on this territory.

Take it further

Attribution across seven lenses is demanding on sample size. The Foundry is where a variant can be examined before it is given real trades to spend.

Open the AlphaRail Foundry Lab

Every module ships in the complete MARS package.

One price. Eleven workbooks, three TradingView indicators, and the full manual library — $497.