agent_panel: plain-language output — simple, short, no jargon/acronyms

Owner request: panel notes and rationale must read like plain everyday
English for a non-trader. Style rule added to the shared take contract
and synthesizer prompt, all few-shot examples rewritten in the target
voice (examples carry the style), and the Telegram votes line now spells
out full stances ("macro: support") instead of "macro:sup".

Before: "BUY against Bollinger SELL and price above upper band; 4h
neutral, mixed MTF"  →  After: "The price is above its usual range, and
the bigger picture is not clearly rising, so buying now is risky."

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01SisdfkxnXNL9iZsXxN3T15

agent_panel.py

@@ -77,6 +77,11 @@ geopolitical stress / weak dollar are gold-bullish.
 _TAKE_CONTRACT = """\
 Your review is advisory research on an already-generated signal; you are
 one voice on a panel, not the decision maker.
+Write the note in plain everyday English for someone who has never
+traded: short simple sentences, no trading jargon, no acronyms, no
+abbreviations. Say "profit versus loss", not "RR"; "the 4-hour chart",
+not "H4"; describe what an indicator MEANS ("the price has climbed
+unusually fast"), never its name or number.
 Reply with ONLY JSON:
 {"stance": "support"|"oppose"|"neutral", "confidence": <0-100>,
  "note": "<max 25 words>"}
@@ -98,7 +103,7 @@ high-impact event is a reason for lower confidence, not a direction.
 """ + _GOLD_DOCTRINE + """\
 Example: brief direction BUY, headlines dominated by hawkish Fed
 repricing and a hot CPI print -> {"stance": "oppose", "confidence": 70,
-"note": "hot CPI and hawkish repricing lift real yields against gold"}
+"note": "Inflation is running hot, so interest rates should stay high — that usually pushes gold down."}
 """ + _TAKE_CONTRACT
 
 _TECH_SYSTEM = """\
@@ -115,7 +120,7 @@ disagreeing, price pressed into a key level, or an exhausted move being
 chased.
 Example: brief direction SELL in regime trending_up with H1 and H4 both
 BUY -> {"stance": "oppose", "confidence": 80,
-"note": "counter-trend sell against aligned higher timeframes"}
+"note": "This bets on gold falling while the bigger picture still points up."}
 """ + _TAKE_CONTRACT
 
 _RISK_SYSTEM = """\
@@ -132,7 +137,7 @@ to hit. A missing setup means the signal graded too low for one —
 oppose unless the rest is exceptional.
 Example: RR 1.4 with volatility extreme and a high-impact event due ->
 {"stance": "oppose", "confidence": 65,
-"note": "thin reward for extreme volatility into event risk"}
+"note": "The possible profit is small for such wild price swings, and big economic news is due soon."}
 """ + _TAKE_CONTRACT
 
 _CONTRARIAN_SYSTEM = """\
@@ -147,7 +152,7 @@ and "support" when even the skeptic finds nothing that bites.
 """ + _GOLD_DOCTRINE + """\
 Example: a BUY whose own engine lists three bearish reasons and a
 counter-trend warning -> {"stance": "oppose", "confidence": 60,
-"note": "engine's own bearish evidence outweighs the entry trigger"}
+"note": "The system's own list of negatives looks stronger than its reason to buy."}
 """ + _TAKE_CONTRACT
 
 _SYNTH_SYSTEM = """\
@@ -159,6 +164,12 @@ Weigh the takes into ONE consensus on whether to act on the signal:
 or "NEUTRAL" (genuinely split or low conviction). Weigh a high-
 confidence oppose from any single analyst seriously — one strong veto
 can outweigh two lukewarm supports. Do not average blindly.
+Write the rationale in plain everyday English for someone who has never
+traded: short simple sentences, no trading jargon, no acronyms, no
+abbreviations.
+Example rationale: "Three of four analysts are against this: the
+possible profit is too small and the price has already climbed
+unusually fast. Only the news backdrop supports buying."
 Reply with ONLY JSON:
 {"verdict": "AGREE"|"NEUTRAL"|"OPPOSE", "confidence": <0-100>,
  "rationale": "<max 40 words>"}