Sizing for the earnings gap

The commodities gap-sizing lesson ended at zero contracts and a hard choice. Equities re-runs the arithmetic and finds a third option living in the granularity.

The same division, the honest distance

The machinery is lesson 2's unchanged: budget divided by distance. The distance is the honest input - not where a stop would sit, but what results could plausibly print: the name's own earnings-move history, module 2's calibration, doubled for humility. The worked example uses ten times the daily stop, and the answer lands at a tenth of the size - small, real, and holdable through the print with the budget intact.

What granularity buys

• A position that exists: 250 shares where commodities offered zero contracts - the gap costs size, not existence, because shares divide.
• A menu instead of a cliff: full size and flat through results, or gap size and hold - both inside the budget, both honest, chosen per name per quarter.
• No excuse left: with a holdable reduced size always available, full size through results is never forced - it is the budget renegotiated by hope, visible as such in advance.

The rhythm this creates

A per-name position now breathes with the calendar: daily-stop size between events, gap size across them, back again after - the trim-and-restore pattern professionals run, generated here by nothing but the platform's own sizing arithmetic fed two honest distances. The costs module priced the extra trades; the granularity makes them small; and module 7's journal will show whether the discipline actually ran. One caveat carries from the commodities twin: the gap estimate is an estimate - a 15% print against a 10% assumption still overshoots the budget, which is why the distance gets doubled for humility and the halving lesson comes next.