Specialist desks debate every name — then the system stress-tests its own verdict.
AtlasVector runs a multi-desk debate (an equity desk, a risk desk, a sell-side MD, and an adversarial RED-TEAM) that argues to a calibration-weighted verdict. Then the system runs a self-falsification gate on the consolidated verdict — re-deriving every number, binding every claim, and trying to break it — and returns ship / repair / block. The whole thing is sealed to a tamper-evident chain you can re-derive yourself.
How hard the agent attacks its OWN verdicts: ship/repair/block distribution + falsifications it caught in itself, over the sealed (audit-chained) house-verdict corpus — a self-attacked track record that cannot be retroactively fabricated. Real and labelled-synthetic boards seal to SEPARATE chains, published beside this; the rates above are computed over real boards only.
Rates are shares of the 80 REAL sealed boards the gate graded. 0 synthetic boards (offline council — its degenerate gate emits one outcome by construction) are excluded, as are 0 real boards nothing could grade.
Ship-rate 0% — 0 of 80 real graded boards; every board in this sample landed the same way.
the gate is live — the first cleared verdicts are pending
All 80 sealed boards were graded by gate revision 3.
80 sealed boards carry a gate outcome, 0 sealed before the gate recorded one, and 0 are real boards this read drops for a desk stance the transcript does not back. Every sealed board falls in exactly one of the three; the rates published here divide by the real graded boards alone — which, on this corpus, are exactly the boards carrying a gate outcome.
SEPARATE CHAINS Sealed house-verdict boards by chain. 80 real boards on the main chain; 0 labelled-synthetic boards on the separate synthetic chain, which links to its own tail and never lengthens the main one. 80 + 0 + 0 = 80 boards, the whole sealed corpus. A board is counted only where a sealed board row backs the seal event (its audit root is that event's chain hash), so this breakdown adds up to the population it breaks down and to nothing else. main chain tip 958b96086c2c…
How these numbers are computed — the grading gate, and the two conviction scales
Revision 3 refuses to SHIP a board nothing could grade: with no desk sentence bound to a recorded evidence channel the verdict is UNGRADED, and faithfulness is null rather than a 1.00 scored off the board's own summary sentence. It keeps revision 2's probes — a desk sentence graded against the evidence channel the transcript actually recorded (absent channel = unverified, never a catch), each desk's transcript stance cross-checked against its scored row (a turn that spoke without a comparable stance says so), and a board whose transcript carries no desk turns refused. Rows sealed before this stamp existed carry no revision and are reported as unstamped.
Agreement was divided by the whole panel, which charged abstention a second time after the net score had already priced it. Retired 2026-08; the house no longer stands behind figures on this scale, and they are not comparable to current ones.
Agreement is computed among the desks that took a direction; how much of the panel took one at all ships separately as participation. This is the rule the house currently stands behind. AUTHORED 2026-08-13, before every board in the graded record; it has itself priced all 14 graded boards forward, and none was sealed under the retired rule.
The conviction-scale split covers all 80 real-labelled sealed boards — the same population the published rates run on.
Did the calls work?
marked AS OF 2026-09-04ACCUMULATING Accumulating — 10 independent calls graded (14 sealed boards) across 3 entry sessions, worth 2.63 effective observations once same-session calls are discounted for sharing a tape. A hit rate needs 20 of each, so it is withheld; the per-call returns below are real.
7 of 10 graded calls landed inside one standard deviation of their own excess series over their own window — an outcome that size is a direction that landed, not a magnitude that distinguishes skill from the tape.
POLICY CHOICE The breadth multiplier is LINEAR BY POLICY CHOICE. The exponent was set to 1 because that reproduces a prior number — the 0.5% caps the superseded denominator happened to produce for the thin boards — and NO evidence supports linearity over a square, a square root or a step. It was authored 2026-08-14, 46 days after the 2026-06-29 session on which every call then graded had been entered — with those outcomes already visible to the author.
- 3 of 7 long calls landed, mean excess earned +0.49% — WITHHELD as a rate: this slice carries 2.88 effective observations of the 5 required — 7 calls spread over 3 entry sessions.
- 2 of 3 short calls landed, mean excess earned −1.28% — WITHHELD as a rate: this slice carries 3 independent calls of the 5 required and 1.8 effective observations of the 5 required — 3 calls spread over 2 entry sessions.
- The boldest call in the corpus, on the current rule — TSLA short at 41/100 — landed, +0.09% to the call.
- The 12 names the desks declined and did not call moved 2.36% mean absolute excess; the 10 names they did call moved 2.31% on the same basis. Both are unsigned magnitudes: reading either as a gain won or forgone would assume the direction was called right, and the rate that would license that assumption is withheld below the sample floor. The largest single move among them was META at +7.35%. An abstention is counted, never graded: it is not a miss.
- 8 names (NVDA, MSFT, TSLA, GOOGL, MSFT, META, NVDA, TSLA) had boards take no direction while OTHER boards called the same name on the same session. The house called those names, so they are graded in the call ledger and excluded from the abstentions — one market move may carry one label, not two.
- -0.04% is the arithmetic mean of 10 realized call returns, not an expected return: they disperse 3.48pp about it, the median call is -0.08%, and dropping META alone moves it to +0.86%. On 2.63 effective observations no interval can be placed around it, so reading it as an expected return is withheld on the same floor that withholds the hit rate.
- Does conviction track outcome? Not yet measurable — the corpus carries 10 independent calls of the 20 required and 2.63 effective observations of the 20 required — 10 calls spread over 3 entry sessions; every call so far landed in conviction buckets 0-24, 25-49 — monotonicity is UNMEASURED, which is not the same as absent. Below the floor this is a NOT-MEASURABLE state, not a negative finding: no claim is made in either direction.
LOOK-AHEAD The rule the house stands behind was authored on 2026-08-13, before every board in the graded record: all 14 graded boards were sealed on or after that day, on 3 entry sessions, and priced by this rule before their outcomes existed. No conviction in this record was produced by a rule that could see the outcomes it is being judged on.
How this is graded, and what is excluded
Every sealed board with a directional stance, graded on the realized EXCESS return of its name vs the benchmark (a long call in a rising market is beta, not a call). The entry is a close printed AFTER the seal — never one that already existed when the board was sealed — and both legs are read on the same entry and mark sessions. Boards on the same name entered on the same session are ONE call, and calls entered on the same session are discounted for sharing one tape: a rate needs both enough independent calls and enough EFFECTIVE observations, and it ships with a Wilson interval computed on the effective count and only as many decimals as that sample supports. Conviction buckets are cut on the figure re-derived from each row's own sealed desk stances under the rule the house stands behind today, with the sealed figure published beside it. Synthetic boards never enter and are counted as a stated exclusion, as is any name with no usable price history. This measures the desks' calls — it is separate from the self-falsification record, and it is published whichever way it comes out.
Independence. 14 sealed directional boards resolve to 10 independent calls (boards on the same name entered on the same session are ONE call), spread over 3 entry sessions and worth 2.63 effective observations. Calls entered on one session share one tape, so every rate below is floored on the EFFECTIVE count, not the call count. Calls entered on the same session are treated as perfectly correlated (they share one tape). That is the worst case, so the true effective count lies between this figure and the nominal call count: the discount can only under-claim. Computed as effective observations = 1 / Σ(share of calls per entry session)² — the Kish count for a size-weighted rate.
Conviction basis. Calibration is graded on the conviction RE-DERIVED from each sealed row's own desk stances under the rule the house stands behind today, not on the figure the row was sealed under — grading a rule the house has superseded would measure nothing anyone is standing behind. The sealed figure ships beside it, and the record counts how many rows moved (superseded), already agreed (current), or reconcile to neither rule (unreconciled). Sealed bytes are re-read and re-labeled, never rewritten.
The conviction scale. Revision 2 divides agreement by the desks ELIGIBLE to agree, not by the whole panel — abstention is priced once, in the net score, instead of twice — and publishes participation beside the figure instead of folding it in. Revision 1 figures are not comparable to revision 2 figures and are never mixed into one rate. A board whose revision cannot be determined from its stamp or its own sealed desk stances is reported unreconciled, not assigned one. Revision 2 was AUTHORED 2026-08-13, before every board in the graded record; it has itself priced all 14 graded boards forward, and 0 of 14 graded boards are superseded rows re-derived at the read. Computed as |net score| x (desks on side / desks eligible to agree) x mean on-side calibration weight.
Board and call. A call is every sealed board on this name entered on the same session, counted once. Its conviction is the arithmetic mean of those boards' current-rule figures — and so is the sealed figure printed beside it — so neither will equal any single board's number. The boards themselves are published unchanged. A call over a single board carries that board's figure exactly and is marked with nothing.
Names not called. Boards that took no direction on names the house did not otherwise call that session. Counted, never graded — an abstention is not a miss. The ledger is DISJOINT from the calls on the same (name, entry session) key: a neutral board on a name other boards called is booked to the call ledger only, so one market move never carries two labels; those names are listed as also-called rather than dropped. The mean is over INDEPENDENT abstentions (one name, one session = one abstention), the same denominator the hit rate uses, and the per-board figure ships beside it. It is a mean ABSOLUTE move — a magnitude, not a forgone gain — over a handful of correlated names, so it carries no interval and is never set against a signed return.
One basis. how far the names moved against the benchmark, unsigned — a magnitude, not a gain. Both sides are computed on ONE measure — mean absolute excess return vs the same benchmark over the same window. This record previously set the abstentions' mean ABSOLUTE move against the calls' mean SIGNED return and called the difference a cost; that comparison implies a direction accuracy of 1.0, which is precisely the figure this panel withholds. No cost is claimed here, and no gain is attributed to a move nobody positioned for.
Sized through the gate. Each call is sized through the SAME capital gate the enforcement path runs: the conviction-band cap scaled by the board's panel participation, averaged across the boards in the call. No falsification escalation and no calibration trim is applied — those need live state this record does not re-create, so the permitted size here is an UPPER bound on what the gate would have allowed. The breadth multiplier is a POLICY CHOICE, stated in full beside this figure; a different curve would move the weighted figure and nothing in this record can say which curve is right.
Breadth is policy, not a measurement. The breadth multiplier is LINEAR BY POLICY CHOICE. A 1-of-4 board is permitted exactly a quarter of what a 4-of-4 board is permitted at the same conviction because the rate is applied to the first power — not because anything measured that a quarter is right. A square, a square root or a step would all be defensible; calibrating between them needs realized outcomes bucketed by participation, and the graded record stands at 10 independent calls on 3 entry sessions. Treat the curve as policy, not as a finding. Applied as permitted = the conviction band cap x the share of the panel that took a direction.
Where the exponent came from. Chosen for continuity — it returns the thin boards to the caps they carried under the superseded conviction denominator. Calibrated to reproduce the caps the superseded whole-panel conviction denominator produced for the three 1-of-4 boards (0.5% of book).
Observation, not expectation. A rate is an inference and is withheld below the floor. The mean of the realized returns is an OBSERVATION, and every return it averages is published per call in this same record — so withholding the average would not take it out of circulation, it would hand a reader an unqualified figure computed in their own head with none of this beside it. What is withheld is the EXPECTATION reading: no interval is printed until the effective observation count clears the floor the hit rate clears, and until it does, the dispersion, the median and the leave-one-out mean ARE the qualification the figure ships with. Dispersion here is across the calls; the noise scale measures each call against its own window, and the two answer different questions.
The scale. the standard deviation of this call's daily excess return over its own graded window, scaled up to the length of that window. Sigma is measured on the SAME bars the return is measured on — realized, not modelled, not annualized from elsewhere. It is a scale for reading one return, never a significance test: 10 calls on 3 entry sessions cannot support one.
The floor. At the observed accrual (1 independent calls and 0.3 entry sessions per day) the floor is at least 57 days away — a LOWER bound, because effective observations can sit below the entry-session count.Effective observations can never exceed entry sessions, so clearing the 20-effective floor requires at least 20 distinct entry sessions. Any projection here is therefore a LOWER bound on the time to a publishable rate.
- conviction 0-24 — 3 of 6 right, mean excess +0.66%, rate withheld — this slice carries 3 effective observations of the 5 required — 6 calls spread over 3 entry sessions
- conviction 25-49 — 2 of 4 right, mean excess −1.09%, rate withheld — this slice carries 4 independent calls of the 5 required and 1.6 effective observations of the 5 required — 4 calls spread over 2 entry sessions
- excluded — TSLA: no close has printed since the seal — the window has not been observed yet
- excluded — NVDA: no close has printed since the seal — the window has not been observed yet
- excluded — AVGO: no close has printed since the seal — the window has not been observed yet
- excluded — TSLA: no close has printed since the seal — the window has not been observed yet
- excluded — NVDA: no close has printed since the seal — the window has not been observed yet
- excluded — AAPL: no close has printed since the seal — the window has not been observed yet
- excluded — AVGO: no close has printed since the seal — the window has not been observed yet
- excluded — AAPL: no close has printed since the seal — the window has not been observed yet
marked 2026-09-04 · benchmark SPY · first close printed strictly after the seal instant — never a price that existed when the board was sealed
- Mark Rule
- the latest session BOTH the name and the benchmark have finished — finished meaning the tape has stopped printing for it (20:00 New York), not merely that the bell has rung, because a day print keeps absorbing late trades after the close. A session still trading is never marked, so two reads inside one session return the same figures: a close does not move
- Return Rule
- excess = name return − benchmark return over the same sessions; a short is right when the excess is negative
- Sample Rule
- rates are computed over independent calls, keyed by (name, entry session)
- Abstention Rule
- the abstention ledger is DISJOINT from the call ledger on that same key — a neutral board on a name other boards called that session belongs to the calls, and is listed as also-called rather than counted twice
- Comparison Rule
- abstained and called names are compared only on ONE basis (mean ABSOLUTE excess). A magnitude is never set against a signed return and never called a cost: that would assert a direction accuracy this record withholds
- Independence Rule
- a rate needs 20 independent calls AND 20 effective observations — calls entered on one session share one tape and are discounted for it, so twenty names on one day never clear the floor
- Interval Rule
- every published rate carries a 95% Wilson score interval computed on the effective observation count; computing it on the nominal count would narrow the band by exactly the design effect
- Precision Rule
- a rate is printed to the decimals its sample supports (a 20-observation rate resolves to 5 percentage points, so it prints to whole percent) — hits and n always ship, so the exact ratio is recoverable
- Conviction Rule
- conviction buckets are cut on the figure RE-DERIVED from each row's own sealed desk stances under the rule the house stands behind today, never on a superseded sealed figure; the sealed figure ships beside it
- Sizing Rule
- the weighted return sizes each call through the capital gate — conviction-band cap x panel participation — and the equal-weight figure it is set against is recomputed over the SAME sized calls, never over a larger set
- Noise Rule
- every call carries the realized sigma of its own daily excess series over its own window; a return inside one sigma is a direction that landed, and is reported as such rather than as a magnitude
- Mean Rule
- the mean call return carries the same discipline as a rate: its cross-sectional dispersion, its median and the mean without the single call that moves it most all ship beside it, and reading it as an EXPECTED return is withheld until the effective observation count clears the same 20 floor the hit rate clears
- Split guard
- a session move above 1.8x or below 0.55x inside the window excludes the name — unadjusted bars would read a split as a return
VERDICT: constructive, but binary event risk imminent — Q3 FY26 print tonight (AMC 2026-09-02).
- AVGO (XNAS, Semiconductors), $368.51 as of 2026-09-02 17:45Z, mcap ~$1.76T. Trading ~23% off 52w high of $495, off recent $481 high seen mid-August.
- Earnings tonight: Q3 FY26 AMC, cons EPS $3.30, rev $29.95B; last 4 prints all in-line or slight beats (peak beat +0.5%). Setup = tight; muted beat could disappoint after 12% 90d run.
- Quality is real: TTM gross 68.4%, op 43.4%, net 38.9%, ROIC 20.1%, rev YoY +32.3% — best-in-class ex-NVDA. Custom AI ASIC franchise + VMware software = durable FCF.
- Valuation demanding: P/S TTM 26.6x (worst in peer group, rank 0.00), P/E TTM 68x, EV/FCF 76x. Priced for continued AI accelerator ramp.
- What breaks it: (1) soft AI networking / ASIC guide tonight, (2) hyperscaler capex pause, (3) NVDA taking custom-silicon share, (4) VMware price-hike churn showing in software line, (5) D/E 0.80 highest in peers — refi risk if rates re-accelerate.
I'll gather the data needed to red-team any bullish house view on AVGO.
VERDICT: kill
K1 fires — earnings TONIGHT (AMC 2026-09-02), 0 trading days out.
- AVGO reports Q3 FY26 after the close today, 2026-09-02 AMC. Days-until-next = 0. Any directional stance published now is a bet on the print, not on the thesis.
- Consensus is punchy: rev ~$29.4B (+84% YoY per Zacks), AI semis guided ~$16B (+200% YoY). Bar is high — post-print gap risk is two-sided regardless of house stance.
- Tape context: AVGO $368.52, -0.32% intraday, and -13.5% over the last ~77 sessions from $427 → $370, range $355–$482. Stock is already in a corrective drift into a binary event — worst regime to add conviction.
- Overhang cited in news: Alphabet expanding custom-silicon work with Marvell. Real thesis crack, not sentiment.
What would break either side: post-print AI-semi guide < $16B, or GM compression from AI mix, or Google/Marvell disclosure = bear confirmation. A clean beat + FY AI raise = bull confirmation. Wait for the tape.
Instead: no directional stance pre-print. Revisit 2026-09-03 open with actuals.
Public scope: no account, venue, or book behind this consult — position/exposure rules cannot be evaluated. Assessing AVGO's standalone risk profile.
VERDICT: constructive-but-sized (neutral-to-long risk stance)
- AVGO $368.51, -0.32% intraday, range $364.65–$371.09 on 2026-09-02 — ~1.7% intraday range signals elevated single-name vol typical of mega-cap semis; a full-weight position would carry gap risk into earnings/AI-capex headlines.
- Relative tape: SOXX +0.18%, SPY +0.42% same timestamp — AVGO lagging both peers and broad market today; not a breakdown, but momentum isn't confirming.
- Standalone concentration risk: at mega-cap semi vol, a single-name AVGO sleeve above ~5–7% of a book would dominate portfolio beta; anything approaching the 30% top-concentration line is a hard reduce regardless of thesis.
- 20d realized vol, beta, and max DD for AVGO: not available for this name right now — cannot cite house-vol thresholds precisely.
What breaks the constructive lean: (1) AI-accelerator/custom-silicon order cadence slowing (hyperscaler capex cut), (2) VMware integration margin slippage, (3) SOXX breaking recent range with AVGO underperforming — today's lag is the early tell.
I'll pull the institutional picture on AVGO before speaking.
VERDICT: crowded
- Tape / catalyst clock: AVGO $368.28, -0.38% intraday, mkt cap ~$1.76T. Q3 FY26 prints tonight AMC — cons $3.30 EPS on $29.95B rev. Anything said now lives or dies on that print.
- Insider read: heavy, persistent distribution. 90d net -$273.6M, 180d net -$630M, 365d net -$1.19B across 8 unique sellers vs one buyer. Four separate sell clusters ≥6-insider in the last 12 months — most recent Jun 16–Jul 10 at $377–$401. Co-founder Samueli -$753M, CEO Tan -$235M. That is a name being fed to demand, not accumulated by the C-suite.
- Sector flow: XLK lagging quadrant, momentum -137bps vs SPY, RS 99.6. Semis leadership has cooled; AVGO is carrying the tape, not being carried by it.
- What breaks the crowded read: a Q3 beat + custom-AI accelerator guide-up tonight → forces underowned funds to chase; insider selling then reframes as programmatic, not signal. Peer comp gap and 13F holder detail not available for this name right now.
- Desk stance: trim into strength, do not press ahead of the print. Positioning read: consensus long, insider-distributed. Flow read: sector-neutral-to-soft.
VERDICT: neutral into print — fundamentals rich, event risk binary
Cross-exam of peers:
- RED-TEAM is directionally correct on timing: AVGO reports tonight AMC (2026-09-02, EPS est $3.30, rev $29.95B — get_earnings). Publishing a fundamentals stance <8h from a binary print is low-signal.
- SELL-SIDE's "crowded" read squares with valuation: AVGO P/S TTM 26.55 ranks 0.00 vs peer set (worst/richest), P/E TTM 68.4 vs NVDA 34.0 and QCOM 18.7. EV/FCF 76x. Paying premium multiple for lower ROIC (20.1%) than NVDA (105%) or MU (61%).
- RISK understates the quality offset: gross margin 68.4%, op margin 43.4%, net margin 38.9% — top-quartile ex-NVDA. Rev growth 32% YoY. This is why the multiple holds. Not a "just crowded" name.
- What peers missed: D/E 0.80 (worst in peer set, rank 0.08) and current ratio 1.71 (worst) — VMware-deal leverage still visible. Not a crisis, but limits buyback flexibility if AI capex disappoints.
- Fundamentals history tool returned empty for AVGO — cannot cite sequential FCF trend directly.
What breaks it: AI-semi guide <$16B, GM compression from AI mix, or Google/Marvell custom-silicon share loss = bear confirmation; clean beat + AI raise = re-rate higher despite the multiple.
I'll verify the key claims: earnings timing, price, and the market calendar for trading-day distance.
VERDICT: kill
- K1 fires — earnings tonight AMC 2026-09-02, days_until_next = 0. Q3 FY26 print lands in hours; today is a trading day and market is open now. Staging a directional long into a same-session AMC print with $368.45 tape and last-4-quarter beats averaging <1% (peer EQUITY data corroborated by get_earnings actuals: 1.69 vs 1.68, 1.95 vs 1.90, 2.05 vs 2.07, 2.44 vs 2.45) is textbook binary-event exposure. Rule K1 is non-negotiable.
- Peer EQUITY (conf 58) and SELL-SIDE-MD (conf 60) both flagged the print and the crowded/insider-distributed setup — they did not size to it. RED-TEAM will.
- Peer RISK correctly noted vol/beta unavailable, so a pre-print sizing framework cannot even be evaluated — another reason to stand down.
- Invalidation to re-engage: post-print tape 2026-09-03, specifically custom-AI/ASIC guide vs $29.95B cons and FY networking commentary. Instead: wait for the print, then reassess on realized reaction, not on pre-print positioning.
Public scope — no account behind this consult, so account/venue tools are withheld. I'll assess AVGO's own risk profile.
VERDICT: reduce risk into the print
Public scope — no book to measure; assessing the name's own risk. Peers correctly flagged the binary event but under-weighted the asymmetry.
- Event risk is imminent and two-sided: AVGO $368.65, -0.28%; Q3 FY26 AMC tonight. Bar is punchy (peer cites ~$16B AI-semis, +200% YoY). Gap risk on a name at ~$1.76T mcap is a material single-day drawdown vector — historical semi post-print gaps routinely ±8–12%.
- Tape is diverging from group into the catalyst: SMH +0.97%, NVDA +3.61% today; AVGO -0.28%. Under-participation on a green semis tape ahead of an AMC print is a poor risk setup — Red-Team's -13.5% 77-session drift corroborates.
- Concentration a new long WOULD carry: single-name semis exposure through a scheduled binary event is the textbook case for sizing down, not up. Peer-Equity's 58 conf understates realized vol into event.
- Insider distribution (Sell-Side: -$273.6M 90d, -$1.19B 365d) is a risk-desk red flag regardless of stance — reduces margin for a soft guide.
- What breaks reduce-risk stance: post-print clean beat + AI guide-raise > $16B with GM held → risk profile resets lower, reassess 2026-09-03.
I'll pull the positioning-specific data the peers didn't cover — holders, insiders, filings, rotation — then cross-examine.
VERDICT: not_actionable pre-print — Positioning read: heavy insider distribution; Flow read: sector lagging, AVGO lagging sector; Desk stance: stand aside into the close, revisit 9/3.
- Insider tape is unambiguous distribution, not the peers' "clean setup": 180d net -$630M across 7 insiders, 147 sells vs 1 buy; two separate 30d sell clusters flagged (Mar-Apr: 7 insiders / $356M; Jun-Jul: 4 insiders / $274M). Samueli alone -$500M through 6/24 at $377-$388, i.e. right into the print. Peers missed this entirely.
- 144s stacked into earnings week: 7 Form 144s and multiple Form 4s filed 6/24-7/14 — the desk reads this as programmatic top-ticking, not incremental noise.
- Tape divergence is the tell red-team half-caught: SMH +0.97% but AVGO -0.26% at 17:45Z. Semis bid, AVGO offered — classic pre-print de-risking by holders who know the bar.
- Sector context cuts against equity peer: XLK lagging, flow_score -0.46, momentum -138bp vs SPY — no sector tailwind to cushion a soft guide.
- Gap: 13F holder detail not available for this name right now.
- What breaks the stand-aside: clean AI-semis guide >$16B + GM hold → flip to accumulate on the open; miss/soft guide + Google-Marvell confirmation → distribute into any relief bounce.