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.