ten31-signal-engine/BATTERY_corpus_scope.md

# Battery corpus scope + the regulatory-timing finding (DESIGN_v2 §3-step-6, lineage-aware)

Scoped via lineage-tagged research (workflow `w4pt3n0wq`). This is the first installment of the
lineage-aware corpus expansion — and it produced a sharper resolution of the Battery thesis than the
adoption-evidence labels alone.

## The finding (CORRECTED by principal ground-truth, 2026-06-08): the supply failure was capital-provider WILLINGNESS, not regulation
> **Retraction.** An earlier version of this note (and the scoping agent) claimed the supply failure was "structurally regulatory" (SAB-121 blocked it). **That was wrong — a plausible-narrative over-fit, the exact failure mode the engine exists to catch — and is retracted.**

The institutional-supply leg of D1 failed because **capital providers — legally free to fund Battery — were unwilling to provide dollars** for a novel product from a new company in an emerging structure. **Nothing *restricted* them.**
- Regulatory uncertainty plausibly dampened institutional risk appetite for the space *broadly*, but it was **not Battery's gate**. **Proof:** the 2025 regulatory unblock (SAB-122 Jan 2025, FDIC/OCC reversals) did **NOT** produce institutional dollars for Battery — **they remain unraised as of 2026.** If regulation had been the binding constraint, removing it would have moved the outcome. It didn't.
- So the binding constraint is **capital-provider willingness / risk-appetite for the product**, not regulatory permissibility.

**Why this matters for the engine (the sharpened S1 lesson):** an engine fanning the REGULATORY/enabler axis would have generated a FALSE "supply is unblocking in 2025" signal — a plausible-but-wrong causal model producing a *false positive*. The TRUE resolution is **actual committed/deployed capital to fund the loans at scale**, which stayed NO throughout (the frozen pre-registered criterion was right; only the causal gloss drifted). Enablers (regulation, a single bank's toe-in) are CONTEXT, never the resolver — they can resolve YES while the conviction fails.

A correct two-sided read across 2022–2024+: **demand-net rising** (named lenders, real borrower appetite) while the **supply-net stays flat** measured as *actual capital committed to fund the loans* — and critically, NOT mistaking the 2025 regulatory enabler for supply arriving.

## What resolves which axis (set this BEFORE listing the corpus, so policy can't creep back into the resolver)
- **SUPPLY axis (the binding constraint) resolves ONLY on actual committed/deployed dollars** funding BTC-collateralized loans at scale — Battery's own raise status, named lenders' *funding sources* (whose balance sheet, drawn vs. announced), and dollars actually deployed. This stays **NO** through the window and **NO post-2025-unblock** (Battery remains unraised as of 2026).
- **DEMAND axis resolves on borrower appetite + originated volume** — named originators, cumulative origination. This goes **YES**.
- **Policy / regulatory documents are CONTEXT, never the supply resolver.** They explain ambient institutional risk-appetite for the space; they do **not** measure whether capital reached Battery. The 2025 unblock is the proof: it flipped the policy axis YES while supply stayed NO. An engine that wired policy into the supply resolver would have printed a false "supply unblocking" signal. Tag policy `axis=context`, weight 0 into the supply score.

## The corpus, by lineage (tag at ingestion; the downstream tier is the same-event echo)
- **PRIMARY (original disclosures/events — ingest as dated documents):** **the supply-axis primaries that actually resolve it** — Battery's own raise/funding disclosures, named lenders' funding-source disclosures (Cantor/Maple/FalconX *who-funds-it*, Unchained/Ledn balance-sheet vs. flow), and deployed-dollar reporting; then SEC SABs, OCC Interpretive Letters, FDIC FILs, Fed SR letters **(policy — `axis=context`, NOT supply)**; GlobalCapital, Bloomberg, Galaxy Research crypto-lending reports, S&P/Moody's structured-finance (trade); Unchained/Ledn/Strike/SALT/debifi blogs (demand); Cantor PR (supply *announcement* — distinguish announced from funded); JPMorgan/Goldman/MS earnings + filings (incumbent-entry — **we already ingest these via EDGAR + FMP**).
- **INDEPENDENT (separate vantage, different incentives):** CSBS + GAO (opposing regulators/oversight — leading indicators); Deloitte/KPMG (audit-liability, real-time read of what the rule does to the books); top-tier bank-regulatory law firms (represent the banks deciding); 9fin, PitchBook LCD, Private Debt Investor, Asset Securitization Report (independent credit data); bank 10-K/10-Q.
- **DOWNSTREAM (same-event echo — tag + near-zero independence, like own_network):** the long tail of law-firm client alerts + Mondaq; Creditflux, SCI; crypto trade press (Ledger Insights, Banking Dive, The Block, CoinDesk, Decrypt). **Cantor's $2B program is flagged "THE ECHO-TRAP CASE"** — every outlet on it = ONE event, not corroboration.

## Ingestion plan (the build to actually run Battery) — ordered by what resolves the supply axis
1. **Committed-capital evidence (the supply resolver — highest priority)** = Battery's own raise/funding disclosures + named lenders' *funding-source* disclosures (whose dollars, drawn vs. announced, deployed at scale). This is what the supply-net is measured on. Pull from company disclosures, PitchBook/9fin/credit-data, and the announced-vs-funded distinction on Cantor/Maple/FalconX. **Low volume, decisive.**
2. **Lender + borrower disclosures** = a handful of company blogs (RSS where available) for the demand-net (origination volume, named originators).
3. **Bank treatment** = already available (EDGAR filings + FMP earnings calls for JPM/GS/MS — extend the existing company corpus); read for *deployed* exposure, not stated intent.
4. **Policy primaries (`axis=context`, NOT supply)** = a small set of structured, dated, RSS-accessible document feeds (SEC/OCC/FDIC/Fed) — ingest as `filing`-like text docs (clean, no transcription). Cheap to pull; **weight 0 into the supply score** — present only to explain ambient risk-appetite and to demonstrate the 2025 policy-YES / supply-NO divergence.
5. **Independent credit-data + Big-4 + law-firm** = sample, lineage-tagged independent.
6. **Downstream tier** = ingest but tag `lineage=downstream` → near-zero independence in EISC (same mechanism as `own_network`). The Cantor echo must not read as corroboration.

This needs a small **policy-document + blog fetcher** (different from RSS-audio and EDGAR) — the next build for the Battery leg. The Strike leg (bitcoin podcasts) is already transcribing.