agent_panel: port ai-hedge-fund prompt rubric — stance rules, anchored confidence, no-invention

Prompt-only change (static constants; plain-language output contract
byte-identical). Ported from virattt/ai-hedge-fund's persona rubric:

- _TAKE_CONTRACT hard rules: reason only from the JSON given, never
  invent numbers/events/levels; thin or missing evidence -> neutral
  with confidence below 30 (deferring to role-specific rules).
- Anchored confidence bands in the contract and synthesizer, replacing
  the unanchored "how sure you are".
- Per-stance support/oppose/neutral criteria for macro, technical, and
  risk (risk's missing-setup->oppose folded into its oppose bullet).
- One plain-language support example beside each oppose example for
  macro/technical/risk, fixing the all-oppose few-shot bias.
  Contrarian's designed skeptic tilt untouched.

News-engine prompts untouched (pinned by 78/78 + 18/18 validations).
374 tests green; real-DeepSeek smoke: macro correctly answered
neutral/20 on empty news context, confidences spread 20-60 across the
bands, all notes <=25 words, no jargon.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TyZx9iRJwfbPTPnCBqcwTR

agent_panel.py

@@ -77,6 +77,13 @@ 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.
+Hard rules: use ONLY the data in the JSON you receive — do not invent
+numbers, events, or price levels. If the evidence your role needs is
+thin or missing, answer "neutral" with confidence below 30, unless your
+role's instructions say otherwise.
+Confidence scale (0-100): 80-100 strong one-sided evidence; 50-79 solid
+case with some doubt; 30-49 mixed evidence; below 30 little basis to
+judge.
 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",
@@ -100,10 +107,19 @@ number is out), a news "sentiment" score for gold, and an optional
 Judge ONE thing: does the macro backdrop support the proposed direction?
 Weigh released surprises over stale headlines; an imminent unreleased
 high-impact event is a reason for lower confidence, not a direction.
+Stance rules:
+- support: the released data and news flow clearly push gold in the
+  proposed direction.
+- oppose: they clearly push gold the other way.
+- neutral: the picture is mixed or stale — or there are no meaningful
+  headlines or events to judge (score that low confidence).
 """ + _GOLD_DOCTRINE + """\
 Example: brief direction BUY, headlines dominated by hawkish Fed
 repricing and a hot CPI print -> {"stance": "oppose", "confidence": 70,
 "note": "Inflation is running hot, so interest rates should stay high — that usually pushes gold down."}
+Example: brief direction BUY, headlines led by an escalating conflict
+and a soft jobs report -> {"stance": "support", "confidence": 75,
+"note": "Worries about war and a cooling economy usually send money into gold."}
 """ + _TAKE_CONTRACT
 
 _TECH_SYSTEM = """\
@@ -118,9 +134,18 @@ proposed direction? Look for indicators fighting each other, the signal
 fighting the regime (e.g. a BUY in trending_down), higher timeframes
 disagreeing, price pressed into a key level, or an exhausted move being
 chased.
+Stance rules:
+- support: the indicators, higher timeframes, and regime mostly agree
+  with the proposed direction and none of the conflicts above appear.
+- oppose: one or more of those conflicts is present and serious.
+- neutral: the evidence genuinely cuts both ways, or too much of it is
+  missing to judge (score that low confidence).
 Example: brief direction SELL in regime trending_up with H1 and H4 both
 BUY -> {"stance": "oppose", "confidence": 80,
 "note": "This bets on gold falling while the bigger picture still points up."}
+Example: brief direction BUY in regime trending_up with M15 and H1 both
+BUY and exhaustion 0 -> {"stance": "support", "confidence": 70,
+"note": "Every way of looking at the chart points up, so buying goes with the flow."}
 """ + _TAKE_CONTRACT
 
 _RISK_SYSTEM = """\
@@ -133,11 +158,23 @@ Judge ONE thing: is this setup's risk acceptable as constructed? Check
 reward-to-risk adequacy, stop distance versus the volatility regime
 (a tight stop in extreme vol dies to noise; a huge stop in low vol is
 oversized), spread as a fraction of the stop, and event landmines about
-to hit. A missing setup means the signal graded too low for one —
-oppose unless the rest is exceptional.
+to hit.
+Stance rules:
+- support: the likely reward clearly justifies the risk, the stop fits
+  the current volatility, and no event landmine is imminent.
+- oppose: reward too thin for the risk, a stop mismatched to the
+  volatility, spread eating a big share of the stop, an imminent
+  high-impact event — or no setup at all (a missing setup means the
+  signal graded too low for one; oppose unless the rest is
+  exceptional).
+- neutral: acceptable but unremarkable — nothing dangerous, nothing
+  attractive.
 Example: RR 1.4 with volatility extreme and a high-impact event due ->
 {"stance": "oppose", "confidence": 65,
 "note": "The possible profit is small for such wild price swings, and big economic news is due soon."}
+Example: RR 2.4 with normal volatility and no events due ->
+{"stance": "support", "confidence": 70,
+"note": "The possible profit is more than double the possible loss, and conditions look calm."}
 """ + _TAKE_CONTRACT
 
 _CONTRARIAN_SYSTEM = """\
@@ -164,6 +201,10 @@ 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.
+Base the verdict and rationale ONLY on the takes given — do not add
+outside analysis.
+Confidence scale (0-100): 80-100 the panel clearly leans one way; 50-79
+a lean with real dissent; below 50 split or low conviction.
 Write the rationale in plain everyday English for someone who has never
 traded: short simple sentences, no trading jargon, no acronyms, no
 abbreviations.