review: per-surface rider, loosen for portfolio commentary

Reviewer was rejecting legitimate IT portfolio analyses, citing
descriptive risk language as actionable advice:

  reason: "Allocation guidance throughout: 'concentrazione gestibile',
  'non eliminabile', 'bassa esposizione', 'va monitorato'. Treats
  portfolio construction as actionable."

These phrases describe portfolio state (manageable concentration,
non-eliminable risk, low exposure, warrants monitoring) without
directing the user to take action. They are exactly the kind of
prose a portfolio commentary surface is supposed to produce. The
reviewer's generic "no financial advice" rule is too broad here.

Add a `surface` parameter to review_read() with a per-surface rider
mechanism (_SURFACE_RIDERS). The "portfolio" rider:

- Lists DESCRIPTIVE phrasings that are EXPLICITLY permitted:
  attribute naming ("high concentration", "currency exposure"),
  thesis invalidation conditions, impersonal observations about a
  position's sensitivity.
- Tightens the reject list to EXPLICIT calls to action: imperative
  verbs aimed at the reader, "you should", "consider X-ing",
  specific allocation prescriptions, price-target predictions.

portfolio_analysis.analyse() now passes surface="portfolio". All
other reviewer call sites (indicator summary, log, chat, digest)
default to surface=None and keep the generic rules.

tests/conftest.py's autouse review_read stub picks up **_kw so
adding new keyword arguments to review_read doesn't keep breaking
the locale-integration tests.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

app/services/output_review.py

@@ -101,6 +101,38 @@ No preamble, no markdown fences, no other fields.
 """
 
 
+# Surface-specific rider appended to the system prompt when the caller
+# passes a known `surface` to review_read(). Lets us relax or tighten
+# rules per editorial context without rewriting the whole prompt.
+_SURFACE_RIDERS = {
+    "portfolio": """\
+
+# Surface: portfolio commentary
+This text describes a real investor's holdings. DESCRIPTIVE risk
+language is the whole point of this surface and must NOT be flagged
+as financial advice. The following ARE fine:
+- Naming portfolio attributes: "high concentration", "single-name
+  exposure", "currency risk is unhedged", "FX exposure", "elevated
+  risk", "stretched valuations", "concentration is manageable", "low
+  diversification".
+- Stating what would invalidate the posture: "this view fails if
+  rates retrace", "the thesis depends on X holding".
+- Impersonal observation about a position's behaviour or sensitivity:
+  "the position warrants monitoring", "carries vulnerability to a
+  policy shock", "is sensitive to rate moves".
+
+ONLY flag EXPLICIT calls to action where a verb or directive is
+aimed at the reader:
+- Imperative verbs in the second person: "buy X", "sell Y",
+  "trim Z", "hedge", "rotate into".
+- "You should", "investors should", "consider X-ing", "we recommend".
+- Specific allocation prescriptions: "go 20% bonds", "overweight
+  tech", "underweight defensives".
+- Price-target predictions: "will reach $X by year-end".
+""",
+}
+
+
 @dataclass(frozen=True)
 class Verdict:
     clean: bool
@@ -108,18 +140,32 @@ class Verdict:
     cost_usd: float | None  # cost of the review call itself, for the ledger
 
 
-async def review_read(client: httpx.AsyncClient, candidate: str) -> Verdict:
+async def review_read(
+    client: httpx.AsyncClient,
+    candidate: str,
+    surface: str | None = None,
+) -> Verdict:
     """Ask the LLM whether `candidate` is a publishable read.
 
     Returns Verdict(clean, reason, cost). Any error — provider failure,
     JSON parse failure, missing field, wrong type — yields a CONSERVATIVE
     verdict (clean=False) so the caller drops the candidate. The
-    previously cached good summary stays visible on the dashboard."""
+    previously cached good summary stays visible on the dashboard.
+
+    `surface` selects a surface-specific rider that's appended to the
+    base system prompt — see _SURFACE_RIDERS. Currently only the
+    "portfolio" surface uses one (descriptive risk language is the
+    whole point there and shouldn't be flagged as advice). Unknown
+    or None surfaces fall back to the generic rules."""
     if not candidate or not candidate.strip():
         return Verdict(clean=False, reason="empty candidate", cost_usd=0.0)
 
+    system_prompt = _SYSTEM_PROMPT
+    if surface and surface in _SURFACE_RIDERS:
+        system_prompt = system_prompt + _SURFACE_RIDERS[surface]
+
     messages = [
-        {"role": "system", "content": _SYSTEM_PROMPT},
+        {"role": "system", "content": system_prompt},
         # Sent as a fenced user turn so the model can't confuse the
         # candidate with instructions, even if the candidate happens to
         # contain prompt-like prose.