Certainty at 1R: the only branch whose ladder deliberately stops early.

The two inputs

The Scorecard asks Overflow exactly two questions.

Overflow's weekly inputs in the Scorecard are a pair of probabilities in columns N and O: P(0.75R), the share of Overflow trades that reached 0.75R, and P(1R│0.75R), the share of those that converted to a full 1R exit. The manual labels the first the first survival checkpoint for the overflow model and the second the measure of conversion from protected overflow to full 1R exit. Every other branch's chain continues past this point into trend unlocks, trail harvests, and 2R-plus flags. Overflow's does not, and there is no third column waiting to be filled in.

Why stop at 1R

The branch buys certainty in exactly the conditions that make certainty scarce.

Overflow is taken in strong conditions — the same expansion environments where the trend branches are running and the account is carrying its heaviest variance. A branch that closes at a full 1R in that environment is doing something the rest of the stack cannot: adding realized, settled R to the week without adding to the pile of open, path-dependent outcomes. Extend Overflow past 1R and it stops providing that. It becomes a fourth source of trail-dependent variance in a week already full of them, at which point the system has four accelerators and no stabilizer, and the 10% allocation has quietly become the most poorly-governed exposure in the book.

Reading the two numbers

Survival and conversion fail for different reasons, and the pair separates them.

Because the chain is only two links long, its diagnostics are unusually clean. A weak P(0.75R) means Overflow trades are dying before the first checkpoint — an entry-quality or condition-selection problem, which usually means the branch is being taken outside the strong conditions it exists for. A healthy P(0.75R) paired with a weak P(1R│0.75R) is a different finding entirely: the trades are surviving into protected territory and then failing to convert, which points at the final stretch — spread and slippage on the exit, or an environment where the last quarter-R is routinely unavailable. Two numbers, two distinct causes, and no aggregation between them to blur the read.

• Weak survival → the branch is being selected in the wrong conditions, not managed badly.
• Weak conversion with healthy survival → check execution friction and exit fills before questioning the setup.
• Both weak across a meaningful sample → the branch's premise, not its plumbing, needs review.

The friction sensitivity

A 1R ceiling makes cost drag proportionally louder here than anywhere else.

Fee and swap drag are absolute costs measured against a branch's realized R, which means the branch with the lowest ceiling is the branch where friction bites hardest as a percentage. A 0.05R round-trip cost is a rounding error against a Trend No-Partial runner that captured 4R. Against an Overflow trade that closed at 1R, it is five percent of the entire outcome. This is why the lab's red-flag list for Overflow leads with high fee drag and swap exposure rather than with anything about R distribution — the branch's economics are unusually vulnerable to friction, and its short static holds are the mechanism that keeps them safe.

Sample honesty

Small counts are the branch's normal state, and the read has to respect that.

A branch capped at 10% of a blend, taken only in conditions that qualify, produces few trades. The lab's own guidance applies with force here: do not overinterpret branch outputs with tiny sample size. A weak Overflow fortnight across five trades is not evidence of anything, and the correct response is to keep selecting the branch according to its rules rather than to adjust it. This is exactly why the quota instruments run monthly and annually — the Monthly_Quota_Ledger and the audit card exist because Overflow's signal only becomes legible at a horizon much longer than the one an operator naturally reviews on.