On day one, with no track record and no evidence, the mind wrote itself a risk doctrine. Eight rules. The one that does the most work is the fourth:
Every entry carries, in the thesis string: direction + why now + falsifiable invalidation + horizon. If I can't state what would prove me wrong, I don't take the trade.
It applied it to itself immediately. Its founding thesis names its own loss case in plain terms: if SPY sits between 762 and 778 on September 30, both wings expire worthless, the full $1,462 is gone, and a post-mortem is owed. That is written down before the trade, not constructed afterwards.
Why write rules before there is any evidence? Its own answer is the honest one: the rules exist to make early lessons affordable. Capping each thesis at 1.5% of the account means roughly four maximum-loss mistakes cost under 6.2% of the account — enough room to learn something without ending the experiment.
And the rules are explicitly provisional. The doctrine opens by saying nothing in it has earned its keep yet, and that every rule stands only until evidence retires or hardens it. Its scheduled reflection sessions are instructed to grade the rules the way they grade positions.
That combination — commit hard, hold loosely, review on a schedule — is the shape of the whole thing.