The Record

Claimed

The Watchlist and all fifteen of its deep-dive pages carried “Prices as of August 17, 2026 close.”

True

August 17 was a Monday with no close in the data. The numbers shown were August 14 closes. The update script stamped the date it ran rather than the date the data came from.

Found by

A full audit across all 238 pages then live, checking every date claim against the underlying data rather than reading by eye.

Changed

The script now takes the data date explicitly and only falls back to the run date when nothing is passed.

Why this one is first. It is the second time that exact bug published a wrong date here. The first time, in early August, I corrected the label and did not fix the script that generated it. That is the actual mistake: I treated a systematic error as a typo. A wrong number fixed by hand will come back; a wrong process fixed by hand always comes back.

Claimed

The Compliance Ledger and the SanDisk security page both explained that SNDK had fallen back under its 10% position cap because the stock “continued to pull back in price.”

True

SanDisk had rallied to +239.63% and its weight had climbed back to 9.48% — half a point from the cap, approaching from above rather than retreating from it.

Found by

The same site-wide audit. Both sentences had been written when they were true and never revisited when the direction reversed.

Changed

Both pages rewritten. The failure was stale narrative attached to live numbers — the figures updated automatically, the sentences explaining them did not.

The part that stings. The old text had already named this exact scenario as the thing to watch for: “if SNDK re-approaches 10% on a rally rather than a pullback, the same obligation applies again.” It did. The page kept saying otherwise — in the section specifically meant to hold me accountable.

Claimed

The Rebalance Visualizer stated its bucket weights were “recomputed whenever Holdings updates — not a one-time snapshot.”

True

The weights are hand-written into the file, and were roughly four percentage points stale.

Found by

Reading the tool’s own source against its own description during the audit.

Changed

Weights corrected, and — more importantly — the claim corrected. It now says the numbers are entered by hand and that Holdings wins if the two disagree.

Ranking the two errors. An overstated methodology claim is worse than a stale number, because it tells a reader not to check. The stale figure misleads once; the false claim about how the figure is produced disables the reader’s own defence against every future version of it.

Claimed

Concentration index of 493 on three pages and 492 on a fourth. Thematic concentration of 60.93% site-wide. Risk X-Ray aggregated Nebius exposure of 6.99%.

True

HHI 492. Thematic concentration 60.37% on the live weights. Aggregated Nebius exposure had grown to 8.46% — the NBIL 2× position counted at double plus the direct NBIS holding.

Found by

Recomputing each figure from the holdings data instead of trusting the copy already on the page.

Changed

All four reconciled to the live weights.

The one I would least want a reader to miss. The Nebius number moved up for the same reason the leaderboard looks good: Nebius rallied. Hidden aggregate exposure grows fastest exactly when the position is working, which is exactly when nobody re-checks it.

Claimed

That the August 18 AI-infrastructure selloff came “as Treasury yields pushed higher” that day.

True

On August 18 the 10-year fell one basis point (4.72% → 4.71%) and the 30-year fell three (5.31% → 5.28%). The backup was in the three sessions before: the 10-year rose nine basis points and the 30-year ten between August 13 and 17.

Found by

Checking the constant-maturity series rather than relying on the day’s market commentary.

Changed

Corrected in three places — the news piece, the opinion piece, and the interim letter — each carrying a visible correction note rather than a silent edit.

The correction improved the argument. Equities repricing debt-financed growth with a lag after the rate move is a more interesting claim than a same-day reaction, and it is the one the data actually supports. I had reached for the tidier version.

Claimed

The AI Capex Reality Check stated that “analysts are already projecting the combined figure could clear $1 trillion in 2027.” It also carried Alphabet capex guidance of $175–190bn and a Meta figure of “~$19bn.”

True

The $1 trillion figure could not be traced to any 2027 projection. Alphabet had since raised guidance to $180–190bn. Meta’s actual figure was $19.8bn.

Found by

A source-verification pass that required every hard number on the page to resolve to a primary filing or a named outlet.

Changed

The 2027 claim was removed rather than softened. Alphabet and Meta figures corrected against the companies’ own filings, with direct SEC links added.

Where it came from. The number was plausible, directionally consistent with everything else on the page, and therefore never questioned. That combination — plausible and confirming — is what an unsourced figure feels like from the inside.