npm - @v587d/capital-generation - Versions diffs - 2.7.11 → 2.8.0 - Mend

@v587d/capital-generation 2.7.11 → 2.8.0

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.

Files changed (208) hide show

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

@@ -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 CHANGED Viewed

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@v587d/watchlist",
-  "version": "2.7.11",
+  "version": "2.8.0",
   "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 DELETED Viewed

@@ -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.
--->