@v587d/capital-generation 2.7.11 → 2.7.12

package/selected-skills/peter-lynch-skill/skills/peter-lynch-skill/references/quick/web-research.md

@@ -16,364 +16,12 @@ cannot be resolved without regulator context, or if an aggregator clearly mixes
 ADR, secondary-listing, or specialized-financial-company data in a way that
 blocks the screen.
 
-## Minimum Source Rules
+This guide is split into 3 files so each one arrives complete in a single `read`.
+Open the part you need with `read`, resolved against this skill's base directory:
 
-Use reputable aggregator sources for Quick Research. Preferred source types:
+- `web-research-1.md` — ?; ?; ?; ?
+- `web-research-2.md` — ?; ?; ?
+- `web-research-3.md` — ?; ?; ?
 
-1. financial-data aggregators with multi-year statements and key ratios, such
-   as Yahoo Finance, MarketWatch, Macrotrends, StockAnalysis, GuruFocus, or
-   similar public financial-data pages
-2. market-data aggregators with quote, market capitalization, P/E, dividend,
-   and 52-week range data, such as CompaniesMarketCap, Nasdaq, Yahoo Finance,
-   MarketWatch, StockAnalysis, GuruFocus, or similar pages
-3. aggregator or quote/profile pages that include a short business description,
-   sector, industry, exchange, and country
-
-Do not use annual report PDFs, full 10-K / 10-Q / 20-F extraction, SEC filing
-detail pages, company quarterly reports, or long investor-relations documents
-for Quick Research. Those belong to Deep Research.
-
-Never use anonymous blogs, forums, social media posts, or unsourced pages for
-financial numbers. Do not use news articles as the primary source for standard
-financial metrics when an aggregator table is available.
-
-Every retrieval request must fill a Source Ledger slot, resolve a
-decision-critical conflict, or support a triggered check. Do not ask for another
-source out of curiosity.
-
-Do not ask source-by-source per fiscal year or per metric when one
-aggregator table can answer the question. Extract revenue, earnings per share
-(EPS), margins, cash, debt, shares, dividends, buybacks, and cash-flow lines
-from aggregator pages.
-
-Before asking for a fourth source after the third Quick retrieval, ask internally:
-
-* What decision-critical fact is missing?
-* Can another section of an existing aggregator source answer it?
-* Which reputable aggregator is most likely to contain the missing metric?
-
-Ask for more only if another aggregator is needed to complete the existing Quick
-methodology responsibly.
-
-If aggregator sources conflict, prefer the source that is more recent, more
-complete, and more directly tied to the metric. Note material conflicts in the
-brief. Do not resolve normal Quick conflicts by opening full filings; if the
-conflict is decision-critical, ask for another reputable aggregator or move the
-decision to WATCHLIST / DEEP RESEARCH with the conflict stated.
-
-Every important number in the research brief must include metric, period/date,
-value, currency/units, source ID(s), and label: `Reported`, `Calculated`, or
-`Inference`.
-
-Final report citations must use Source Ledger URLs and this format:
-
-`source: [Source name](https://...)`
-
-## Budget
-
-Practical default:
-
-* **1-3 aggregator sources**
-* **2-3 retrieval requests**
-* **2-3 page fetches**
-
-Expand only when another reputable aggregator is needed for missing required
-Quick evidence, ambiguous identity, live valuation, a possible fatal flaw, a
-triggered special check, or a decision-critical conflict.
-
-## Default Source Set
-
-Use the smallest aggregator source set that completes the screen:
-
-1. One aggregator with financial statements or financial history.
-2. One aggregator with live valuation and market data.
-3. One aggregator profile/summary source only if the first two do not cover
-   identity, business description, sector, industry, or exchange.
-
-Ownership, insider, competitor, or industry aggregator sources are allowed only
-when the existing Quick methodology needs that evidence and it could affect
-conviction.
-
-## Query Pack
-
-Each line below is one thing to ask the host's retrieval channel for, not a page
-to go and open from here. Work through them in order and stop as soon as the
-Source Ledger covers required Quick evidence:
-
-* `"{ticker}" Yahoo Finance financials statistics profile`
-* `"{ticker}" StockAnalysis financials balance sheet cash flow ratios`
-* `"{ticker}" MarketWatch financials income balance sheet cash flow`
-* `"{ticker}" Macrotrends revenue EPS cash flow debt`
-* `"{ticker}" CompaniesMarketCap market cap PE ratio dividend 52 week range`
-* `"{ticker}" Nasdaq quote financials institutional insider`
-
-If the company has a non-US listing, add exchange, country, or reporting
-currency. If the ticker is ambiguous, ask for ticker plus exchange name and use
-aggregator profile pages to resolve the traded entity.
-
-Do not run the full pack automatically.
-
-## Quick Evidence Needed
-
-A Quick decision normally needs:
-
-* identity verified from an aggregator profile, exchange-style quote page, or
-  reputable market-data page
-* simple business model
-* one concrete growth driver
-* revenue and earnings per share (EPS) direction
-* cash-flow quality signal
-* balance-sheet risk signal
-* live valuation snapshot
-* recent trend evidence from aggregator financials, trailing twelve-month
-  metrics, recent quarterly data, or an aggregator news/earnings summary
-* triggered special evidence only if methodology requires it
-
-Do not mark required Quick evidence as `unknown` merely to save tokens. If one
-aggregator lacks a required Quick metric, ask for another reputable aggregator.
-
-If a clear fatal flaw is verified, stop gathering optional data and write the
-SKIP decision.
-
-Fatal flaw examples:
-
-* dangerous leverage
-* heavy dilution
-* persistently negative free cash flow without credible investment explanation
-* severe revenue / EPS deterioration with no credible stabilization evidence
-* valuation obviously excessive relative to weak growth
-
-## Core Extraction
-
-Gather from the Source Ledger first. Ask for a new source only when the current
-ledger cannot answer a required screening item.
-
-### Identity
-
-Gather:
-
-* company name
-* ticker / exchange
-* country / region
-* sector / industry
-* company website from an aggregator profile, if available
-* short business description
-
-### Business Model
-
-Gather:
-
-* what the company sells
-* main customers
-* main products / services
-* main geographies
-* main segment or product mix if easily available
-* one specific 3-5 year growth driver
-
-Avoid vague drivers such as “innovation,” “AI,” “digital transformation,”
-“brand strength,” or “large market opportunity” unless tied to revenue, margins,
-or EPS.
-
-### Revenue, EPS, And Margins
-
-Gather:
-
-* revenue trend, preferably 5 years
-* diluted EPS trend, preferably 5 years
-* 2-year revenue and EPS growth
-* major drops, spikes, or recoveries
-* gross, operating, or net margin direction if available
-
-Do not build a full margin table unless immediately available.
-
-### Cash Flow Quality
-
-Gather:
-
-* operating cash flow, preferably 3-5 years
-* capital expenditures, preferably 3-5 years
-* free cash flow, preferably 3-5 years
-* whether free cash flow broadly confirms net income
-* whether net income rises while operating cash flow or free cash flow weakens
-
-Free cash flow = operating cash flow - capital expenditures.
-
-### Balance Sheet Safety
-
-Gather:
-
-* cash and cash equivalents
-* short-term borrowings
-* current portion of long-term debt
-* long-term debt
-* shareholders' equity
-* interest expense if available
-
-Use interest-bearing debt only:
-
-`Total interest-bearing debt = short-term borrowings + current portion of long-term debt + long-term debt`
-
-Debt-to-equity means:
-
-`interest-bearing debt / shareholders' equity`
-
-### Valuation Snapshot
-
-Use one market-data source by default.
-
-Gather:
-
-* current share price
-* market capitalization
-* trailing P/E
-* forward P/E if available
-* PEG if available
-* EV/EBITDA if available
-* 52-week range
-
-If forward P/E, PEG, EV/EBITDA, or another methodology-relevant valuation
-metric is missing from the current source, use another reputable aggregator.
-Do not omit a valuation metric merely to save tokens.
-
-### Recent Trend Check
-
-Prefer aggregator trailing twelve-month data, recent quarterly financials, or
-earnings/news summaries as a combined source for:
-
-* revenue growth or decline
-* EPS / profit trend
-* margin pressure or recovery
-* guidance cut, warning, or major deterioration
-
-Do not ask for a separate source per recent-trend metric if one aggregator
-source covers them.
-
-## Triggered Extra Evidence
-
-Do not ask for every possible detail. Ask for extra only when methodology
-needs it.
-
-### Cyclicality
-
-Triggered by large EPS/margin swings or clearly cyclical industry.
-
-Gather up to 10-year EPS history if easily available. If not, use 5-year data
-and lower conviction.
-
-### Turnaround
-
-Triggered by 2+ years of EPS decline, revenue contraction plus margin
-compression, or EPS 30%+ below prior peak.
-
-Gather stabilization evidence, liquidity, debt risk, margin recovery evidence,
-and whether valuation already prices in recovery.
-
-### Fast Growth
-
-Triggered by 2-year EPS compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20%+.
-
-Check whether revenue confirms EPS growth, whether growth came from buybacks or
-cost cuts, and whether valuation is reasonable.
-
-### Slow Growth / Mature
-
-Triggered by low EPS growth and mature business profile.
-
-Gather dividend per share, dividend consistency, dividend cuts, buybacks, and
-whether valuation is low enough to justify interest.
-
-### Asset Angle
-
-Triggered by net-cash, asset-heavy, real-estate, subsidiary, equity-stake, or
-large book-value-discount situations.
-
-Gather asset evidence only if it could materially affect downside or the
-decision.
-
-## Bonus Evidence
-
-Only collect after the core screen is not a clear SKIP. Use aggregator sources
-for bonus evidence.
-
-Bonus examples:
-
-* recent corporate insider buying in the last 6 months
-* active buybacks reducing share count
-* institutional ownership below 30%
-* buybacks near 52-week lows
-* stock price near or below net cash per share
-
-## Quick Research Brief
-
-Compile a compact internal brief before writing:
-
-```md
-## Quick Research Brief
-
-### Identity
-- Company:
-- Ticker / exchange:
-- Country / reporting currency:
-- Sector / industry:
-- Aggregator identity/profile URL:
-
-### Source Ledger
-- [S1] [source label]: [URL] — [period/date] — [what it supports] — [quality]
-- [S2] [source label]: [URL] — [period/date] — [what it supports] — [quality]
-- [S3] [source label]: [URL] — [period/date] — [what it supports] — [quality]
-- [S4 optional] [source label]: [URL] — [period/date] — [what it supports] — [quality]
-
-### Business Model
-- What it sells:
-- Main customers/geographies:
-- Specific 3-5 year growth driver:
-- Evidence label:
-- Source ID(s):
-
-### Screening Financials
-- Revenue trend:
-- EPS trend:
-- Margin trend:
-- Operating cash flow / free cash flow signal:
-- Balance sheet signal:
-
-### Live Valuation
-- Data gathered:
-- Share price:
-- Market cap:
-- Trailing P/E:
-- Forward P/E:
-- PEG or growth proxy:
-- EV/EBITDA:
-- 52-week range:
-- Source ID(s):
-
-### Recent Trend Check
-- Latest period:
-- Revenue/profit/margin trend:
-- Guidance cut, warning, or deterioration:
-- Source ID(s):
-
-### Diagnostic Triggers
-- Cyclicality:
-- Turnaround:
-- Fast growth:
-- Slow-growth / mature:
-- Asset angle:
-
-### Fatal Flaw Candidates
-- [candidate] — [evidence]
-
-### Bonus Points
-- [bonus item or none found]
-
-### Missing Decision-Critical Data
-- [item] — [sources checked]
-
-### Decision
-- SKIP / WATCHLIST / DEEP RESEARCH:
-- Main reason:
-- Revisit trigger, if WATCHLIST:
-```
-
-The final Quick report must be based on this brief, not raw retrieval results.
+This index is not the guide: name which parts you opened, and never report a step, a
+threshold, or a template you have not read in this session.

package/watchlist/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@v587d/watchlist",
-  "version": "2.7.11",
+  "version": "2.7.12",
   "description": "Capital 模式的用户自选股（宿主级清单 + Fuyao 报价快照 + /capital-watchlist 路由 + 输入框菜单弹窗）：由 @v587d/capital-generation 随包携带并作为 host 平面行挂载。",
   "license": "MIT",
   "type": "module",

package/selected-skills/investment-skills/skills/buffett-investment-framework/references/08-specialized-overlays.md

@@ -1,309 +0,0 @@
-# Specialized Industry and Instrument Overlays
-
-Use these cards as evidence-bounded analytical prompts derived from Buffett and
-Berkshire writings. Apply them to supplied evidence, preserve each card’s limits, and
-return unresolved findings when prerequisites are missing.
-
-Read this file when adding a triggered insurance, banking, consumer, infrastructure,
-technology, commodity, or instrument check.
-Load only the cards selected by the router; do not load the whole module by default.
-Abbreviated corroboration citations resolve in the [source key](00-source-key.md).
-
-## Card Index
-
-| Card | Decision question |
-| --- | --- |
-| [S01](#s01) | Does float create durable financing value or conceal expensive, unstable underwriting? |
-| [S02](#s02) | Are risks identifiable and priced for full expected cost, and will management shrink when terms are inadequate? |
-| [S03](#s03) | How much reported underwriting profit survives accident-year, reserve-development, incentive, and cycle scrutiny? |
-| [S04](#s04) | Can one event or common cause impair solvency, liquidity, claims payment, or post-shock capacity? |
-| [S05](#s05) | Can claims, collateral, refinancing, or counterparties force cash shortfalls when the same shock weakens the chain? |
-| [S06](#s06) | What prevents this apparently commodity-like insurer from earning commodity returns? |
-| [S07](#s07) | Can modest asset or underwriting errors overwhelm thin equity or trigger confidence-sensitive funding loss? |
-| [S08](#s08) | Do loyalty, pricing, distribution, inventory, and format cause durable returns, or does the brand depend on a weakening channel? |
-| [S09](#s09) | Do essential demand and network position earn adequate owner returns after obligations, regulation, maintenance, and financing stress? |
-| [S10](#s10) | Can important economics be forecast despite obsolescence, distribution change, network effects, and shifting attention? |
-| [S11](#s11) | Do normalized owner returns arise from durable advantage or favorable price, cycle, or underinvestment? |
-| [S12](#s12) | Are event, duration, cash-flow, downside, and optionality mechanics understandable and adequately evidenced? |
-
-## Complete Cards
-
-<a id="s01"></a>
-
-### S01 — Insurance: Value Float by Amount, Cost, Duration, and Outlook
-
-- **Decision question:** Does float create durable financing value or conceal expensive,
-  unstable underwriting?
-- **Guidance:** Analyze amount, normalized underwriting cost, claim-payment duration,
-  runoff, and outlook; compare full cost with realistic funding.
-- **Use when:** Material property-casualty operations or investable funds received
-  before uncertain claims are paid.
-- **Analytical actions:** Reconcile float; estimate cycle-normalized cost and duration;
-  stress runoff, reserve deterioration, yield, and cash use.
-- **Output:** A float ledger and scenario table with funding comparison, required
-  capital, and unresolved reserve effects.
-- **Limits:** Float remains a liability and long duration adds reserve uncertainty; an
-  equity analogy requires supported low cost and durability.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1986 annual letter** — *defines*: float.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2001 annual letter** — *qualifies*: float value depends on
-    relative funding cost.
-- **Corroboration:** OM1996; BH2002; BH2014; LOW ch.7 (early float recognition).
-
-<a id="s02"></a>
-
-### S02 — Insurance: Underwrite Exposure and Price Rather than Volume
-
-- **Decision question:** Are risks identifiable and priced for full expected cost, and
-  will management shrink when terms are inadequate?
-- **Guidance:** Evaluate exposure, conservative severity, full-cost pricing, and
-  demonstrated willingness to reject uneconomic volume.
-- **Use when:** Insurance underwriting where premium growth may obscure risk selection
-  and expected loss.
-- **Analytical actions:** Define exposure, limits, and aggregation; compare price with
-  loss, expense, capital, and uncertainty; review cohort and volume decisions.
-- **Output:** An underwriting-discipline scorecard with exposure, price adequacy,
-  expected economics, volume decisions, and unresolved models.
-- **Limits:** Shrinking is not always correct and no model removes uncertainty; missing
-  exposure or loss assumptions block a conclusion.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1977 annual letter** — *implements*: accept lower volume when
-    insurance rates are inadequate.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2010 annual letter** — *implements*: apply four disciplines to
-    insurance underwriting.
-- **Corroboration:** BH2014; BH2023; BH2025; LOW ch.7 (pricing-over-volume origin).
-
-<a id="s03"></a>
-
-### S03 — Insurance: Reconstruct Reserves and Earnings Through the Cycle
-
-- **Decision question:** How much reported underwriting profit survives accident-year,
-  reserve-development, incentive, and cycle scrutiny?
-- **Guidance:** Treat earnings as provisional until accident-year development,
-  prior-year revisions, settlement maturity, cycles, and quiet years are reconciled.
-- **Use when:** Material loss reserves, long-tail claims, catastrophe exposure, changing
-  assumptions, or unusually smooth results.
-- **Analytical actions:** Build accident- and calendar-year bridges; separate current
-  underwriting from reserve changes; normalize cycles.
-- **Output:** A reserve-development and normalization table with uncertainty ranges,
-  revisions, and unresolved accident years.
-- **Limits:** Reserve error may be innocent and even multiyear windows miss rare losses;
-  absent triangles leave earnings unresolved.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1984 annual letter** — *supports*: property casualty statements
-    are provisional.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1993 annual letter** — *qualifies*: loss free years do not
-    establish catastrophe profitability.
-- **Corroboration:** BH2002; BH2023; LOW ch.10 (GEICO reserving crisis).
-
-<a id="s04"></a>
-
-### S04 — Insurance: Test Aggregate Tail Loss Against Distress Capacity
-
-- **Decision question:** Can one event or common cause impair solvency, liquidity,
-  claims payment, or post-shock capacity?
-- **Guidance:** Aggregate policies, businesses, investments, counterparties, collateral,
-  and funding; work backward from intolerable outcomes.
-- **Use when:** Catastrophe, systemic, liability, cyber, terrorism, or other nonlinear,
-  correlated exposure.
-- **Analytical actions:** Enumerate common causes; estimate ranges under model breaks;
-  compare loss with regulatory, covenant, claims, and post-shock needs.
-- **Output:** An aggregate-tail ledger with loss ranges, liquidity timing, binding
-  capacity, and unresolved correlations.
-- **Limits:** Scenarios are never exhaustive and no universal buffer applies; preserve
-  false precision as unresolved.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1996 annual letter** — *implements*: reverse engineer
-    aggregated tail risk from intolerable outcomes.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2012 annual letter** — *qualifies*: insurance capacity must
-    remain proportionate to enterprise resources.
-- **Corroboration:** BH2002; BH2014; LOW ch.23 (super-cat exposure growth).
-
-<a id="s05"></a>
-
-### S05 — Insurance: Test Crisis Liquidity and the Risk-Transfer Chain
-
-- **Decision question:** Can claims, collateral, refinancing, or counterparties force
-  cash shortfalls when the same shock weakens the chain?
-- **Guidance:** Analyze claims liquidity and the complete transfer chain together,
-  including ability, duration, collateral, jurisdiction, and weakest link.
-- **Use when:** Losses are ceded, collateralized, long-tailed, externally financed, or
-  dependent on multiple transfer parties.
-- **Analytical actions:** Map gross loss, ceded layers, collateral, timing, and parties;
-  stress simultaneous claims and failures; identify unrefinanced liquidity.
-- **Output:** A risk-transfer and liquidity map showing gross and net timing,
-  dependencies, collateral, and unresolved recoverability.
-- **Limits:** Retention is not automatically safer and legal rights do not ensure prompt
-  collection; unverified recoveries stay unavailable.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2001 annual letter** — *implements*: stress test entire
-    reinsurance counterparty chain.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2004 annual letter** — *supports*: reinsurer solvency is
-    material counterparty risk.
-- **Corroboration:** BH2002; BH2014.
-
-<a id="s06"></a>
-
-### S06 — Insurance: Require Discipline and Structure for a Moat
-
-- **Decision question:** What prevents this apparently commodity-like insurer from
-  earning commodity returns?
-- **Guidance:** Look for low cost or niche, distribution, underwriting skill, capital,
-  and a culture willing to sacrifice volume; do not infer a moat from growth.
-- **Use when:** An insurer is claimed to have durable competitive advantage.
-- **Analytical actions:** Name and compare the mechanism; test price, retention,
-  acquisition cost, losses, distribution, and capital through a cycle; seek persistence.
-- **Output:** An insurance-moat map with competitor evidence, cycle indicators, erosion
-  signals, and unresolved causal links.
-- **Limits:** Berkshire and GEICO are favorable cases, not base rates; unobserved causal
-  outcomes leave the moat unresolved.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1987 annual letter** — *supports*: commodity insurance rewards
-    low cost or niche.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1999 annual letter** — *qualifies*: reinsurance advantage
-    combines distribution skill culture and capital.
-- **Corroboration:** BH2014; BH2023; LOW ch.10 (GEICO expense-ratio edge).
-
-<a id="s07"></a>
-
-### S07 — Banking: Assess Funding, Credit, Leverage, and Culture
-
-- **Decision question:** Can modest asset or underwriting errors overwhelm thin equity
-  or trigger confidence-sensitive funding loss?
-- **Guidance:** Analyze asset quality, vintages, funding, liquidity, leverage,
-  incentives, and bad-news flow as one bank-specific fragility system.
-- **Use when:** Banks, deposit-taking lenders, or businesses dependent on
-  confidence-sensitive funding.
-- **Analytical actions:** Segment credit and concentration; stress funding loss, credit,
-  and liquidity together; compare incentives and reporting with outcomes.
-- **Output:** A banking resilience matrix covering loss, runoff, liquidity, capital,
-  culture indicators, and unresolved disclosures.
-- **Limits:** Regimes and protections differ materially; missing asset or funding detail
-  blocks the branch.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2006 annual letter** — *illustrates*: teaser mortgages defer
-    and amplify payment stress.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2010 annual letter** — *supports*: leverage can destroy
-    survival when refinancing disappears.
-- **Corroboration:** EWB §II.G; OM1996; BH2002; LOW ch.19 (deposit-insurance moral
-  hazard).
-
-<a id="s08"></a>
-
-### S08 — Consumer and Retail: Separate Brand Economics from Fragile Distribution
-
-- **Decision question:** Do loyalty, pricing, distribution, inventory, and format cause
-  durable returns, or does the brand depend on a weakening channel?
-- **Guidance:** Test customer behavior and price separately from distribution access,
-  delivered value, inventory risk, and format durability.
-- **Use when:** Consumer products, retail, restaurants, or similar brand and channel
-  dependence.
-- **Analytical actions:** Measure price, volume, retention, mix, and channel economics;
-  trace inventory and format risks; identify channel shifts and alternatives.
-- **Output:** A franchise and distribution scorecard with behavior, unit economics,
-  dependencies, and erosion indicators.
-- **Limits:** Exceptional management can overcome some weak economics; missing cohort,
-  channel, or inventory evidence leaves durability unresolved.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1983 annual letter** — *supports*: consumer franchise and low
-    cost position create goodwill.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1988 annual letter** — *qualifies*: exceptional management can
-    overcome mediocre industry economics.
-- **Corroboration:** EWB §II.E; EWB §V.C; LOW ch.18 (Coca-Cola franchise case).
-
-<a id="s09"></a>
-
-### S09 — Infrastructure: Evaluate Regulation, Irreplaceability, and Maintenance Capital
-
-- **Decision question:** Do essential demand and network position earn adequate owner
-  returns after obligations, regulation, maintenance, and financing stress?
-- **Guidance:** Evaluate regulated return, irreplaceability, service duties, required
-  capital, political legitimacy, and stressed financing together.
-- **Use when:** Utilities, railways, pipelines, networks, and regulated or essential
-  capital-intensive infrastructure.
-- **Analytical actions:** Reconcile allowed and realized returns; separate maintenance,
-  replacement, and expansion; stress lag, affordability, utilization, and debt service.
-- **Output:** An infrastructure bridge covering rate mechanism, capital, returns,
-  financing, constraints, and unresolved regulation.
-- **Limits:** Irreplaceability does not guarantee owner returns; missing rate or
-  maintenance evidence blocks the judgment.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2015 annual letter** — *implements*: regulated investment
-    requires reasonable returns and constituency approval.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2003 annual letter** — *qualifies*: stable ring fenced utility
-    cash flows can support subsidiary debt.
-- **Corroboration:** OM1996; BH2014.
-
-<a id="s10"></a>
-
-### S10 — Technology and Media: Test Whether Disruption Strengthens or Destroys the Moat
-
-- **Decision question:** Can important economics be forecast despite obsolescence,
-  distribution change, network effects, and shifting attention?
-- **Guidance:** Identify the protection mechanism, then test technical substitution,
-  platform control, distribution, behavior, and reinvestment; stop if forecastability
-  cannot be bounded.
-- **Use when:** Technology, software, platforms, media, advertising, or rapid technical
-  and distribution change.
-- **Analytical actions:** Map mechanism and dependencies; track retention, switching,
-  network density, distribution, attention, and innovation spend; define exit
-  indicators.
-- **Output:** A disruption and forecastability map with dependencies, erosion
-  indicators, and an estimable or outside-boundary result.
-- **Limits:** Leadership, reputation, or network size alone is insufficient; unbounded
-  critical economics stop the branch.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1993 annual letter** — *qualifies*: stay with easy to
-    understand businesses.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 2005 annual letter** — *defines*: widening the moat.
-- **Corroboration:** EWB §II.E; BH2014; LOW ch.18 (competence-bounded selection).
-
-<a id="s11"></a>
-
-### S11 — Energy and Commodities: Normalize Cycles, Inflation, and Capital Intensity
-
-- **Decision question:** Do normalized owner returns arise from durable advantage or
-  favorable price, cycle, or underinvestment?
-- **Guidance:** Separate price exposure from controllable advantage and normalize
-  volume, price, utilization, depletion, capital, regulation, and financing.
-- **Use when:** Producers, processors, commodity-linked assets, or energy businesses.
-- **Analytical actions:** Build price-volume-cost and cycle bridges; estimate
-  maintenance, depletion, and working capital; test cost claims under adverse prices and
-  capacity.
-- **Output:** A normalized commodity table with cycle range, capital burden, cost
-  position, inflation exposure, and unresolved assumptions.
-- **Limits:** Low-cost producers may be exceptions and price forecasts remain uncertain;
-  missing reserves or replacement data blocks owner cash.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1978 annual letter** — *supports*: commodity capital intensity
-    depresses returns.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1985 annual letter** — *qualifies*: commodity cost saving capex
-    becomes industry price reduction.
-- **Corroboration:** EWB §I.C; EWB §V.C; OM1996; BH2014.
-
-<a id="s12"></a>
-
-### S12 — Special Instruments: Analyze Event Probability, Duration, Downside, and Optionality
-
-- **Decision question:** Are event, duration, cash-flow, downside, and optionality
-  mechanics understandable and adequately evidenced?
-- **Guidance:** Route each instrument to atomic contractual cash-flow,
-  event-probability, duration, upside, failure-downside, and enforceability analysis;
-  frozen evidence supports only announced-event arbitrage.
-- **Use when:** Announced-event arbitrage, workout, preferred, convertible, or unusual
-  contractual claim rather than ordinary equity.
-- **Analytical actions:** Identify contract, event, states, and legal dependencies;
-  estimate probability, duration, terms, and failure loss; stop unsupported branches.
-- **Output:** A state-contingent worksheet with event states, probability inputs,
-  duration, payoff and loss ranges, legal dependencies, and unsupported branches.
-- **Limits:** No universal return, probability, diversification, or legal checklist
-  applies; unsupported instruments remain unresolved.
-- **Source basis:**
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1988 annual letter** — *defines*: risk arbitrage.
-  - **Berkshire Hathaway 1988 annual letter** — *implements*: four question arbitrage
-    analysis.
-- **Corroboration:** EWB §II.B; BPL1964.
-
-<!-- This document follows common-doc-guidelines.md.
-See github.com/jlevy/practical-prose and review guidelines before editing.
--->