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>
Giorgio Gilestro
0060166d32