Talk notes
Most alternative-data products treat methodology as a trade secret. We argue the opposite. A measurement product is only as credible as the methodology behind it, and a closed methodology is a methodology no one can challenge. Closed methodology compounds error. Open methodology compounds trust.
The walkthrough is concrete. Every signal definition is on /signals. Every formula is on /methodology. The regression code that produced the 21-to-47-day lead-time numbers is in the SSRN-indexed source. The supporting dataset is mirrored to Zenodo, Hugging Face, Kaggle, and Data.world, four redundant academic-grade hosts. Anyone with curiosity, a laptop, and an internet connection can reproduce the entire panel from scratch in under two hours.
The economic logic is also straightforward. Our buyers are investors who write €5k-€50k checks and don't take claims on faith. They trust the open method over marketing copy. By publishing the methodology and the dataset, we let them, or anyone they trust, verify it, not because they'll run the regression themselves. The buyer who can see the method is open is the buyer who trusts us most. The buyer who'd rather not look will use Harmonic instead, and that's fine, because we're not trying to win every buyer, we're trying to win the right buyer.
We close with the seven explicit non-claims. We do not claim causation. We do not claim universality. We do not claim the signal works in every sector. We do not claim 100 percent precision. We do not claim our sample is unbiased. We do not claim the methodology is final. We do not claim there are no false positives. Stating bounded scope improves credibility, not the reverse.