B finally ranks first. You ask an AI to buy it and receive a portfolio chart: B 100%, cash zero. But the account still holds an old stock, transactions cost money, and fractional shares may be unavailable. How does that circle become an order?
Take the chart apart until every dollar has a destination. The question is what the account can actually hold under specified conditions, and what remains unverified, beyond what it would prefer to hold.
First place establishes priority, not an account weight
You will turn a ranking into a constrained long-only target, calculate orders from the next executable prices, reconcile cash, and distinguish signal research, actual holdings, and a comparison benchmark. A spreadsheet or AI-assisted arithmetic is enough; writing code is not required.
Reuse G85's synthetic combined scores: A 2/3, B 3/4, C 5/12, E 1/6. The ordering is B, A, C, E. Momentum and a preference for lower mean absolute daily returns each contributed half the score. D still lacks its momentum endpoint and remains excluded rather than zero-filled.
Select the top 20%, rounding four eligible names upward to one: B. This preserves the earlier rule instead of changing a parameter for this ledger. Final score ties use stable ID; statistical average ranks and trading tie resolution serve separate purposes.
Equal signal weights do not mean purchasing equal account amounts of A and B. B's score of 3/4 also does not assign it 75% of capital. Scores order candidates; funding weights require a further construction rule. Moving a number between those roles would change its meaning.
Bound the target before calculating a purchase
Use a standalone C9-86 execution snapshot, entirely synthetic and denominated in U.S. dollars. It inherits only G85's ranking, not G82's revealed future returns. The original total-return indices calculate signals; an index level of 120 is not a $120 tradable share quote.
The account is long-only, unleveraged, and restricted to whole shares. It owns eight C shares valued at $25 each and $10 cash, totaling $210 equity. The target holds only selected B. The new B purchase has a maximum stock-value budget of $200, with commission checked separately against available cash. A single-name target cannot exceed 96% of pre-rebalance equity, and expected cash after trading must be at least $9.
These are exercise constraints, not household-allocation recommendations. The $200 stock target divided by $210 equity is approximately 95.238%, leaving cash explicitly in the account. A pie chart cannot justify enlarging stock weight until it fills the whole circle. A different account would need its own constraints and feasibility check.
Suppose a further instruction requires at least two stocks, while selection permits only one. Report an infeasible target and follow the predefined resolution process. Adding the runner-up, deleting a constraint, or borrowing to make the chart work would change the study.
An industry cap likewise needs prior handling: reduce the target, retain cash, or block rebalancing under a specified policy. A subsequent gain cannot justify a retroactive exemption. The purpose is consistent behavior when the same conditions recur.
A signal still needs a later execution opportunity
The decision forms after m's close. Orders begin no earlier than the designated window on the first normal trading day of m+1. Do not fill at m's already-past close. Retain raw-field availability, signal formation, and order time separately rather than reduce everything to one date column.
For arithmetic, the snapshot supplies actual full fills: sell C at $25 and buy B at $50. Assume no additional spread, impact, tax, or price movement. Charge each side 5 basis points, or 0.05%, of actual traded value, with no minimum commission. These are teaching inputs, not brokerage quotes.
SEC guidance explains that order routing takes time and the executed price can differ from the displayed quote, which applies to a particular quantity.[1] A daily opening price does not establish that any desired number of shares can trade there. Real research needs quotes, orders, and fills.
A limit order does not solve every uncertainty. A buy limit caps the acceptable price but may remain unfilled; a market order does not guarantee price.[2] Full fills are supplied here. Changing to limit orders without execution evidence leaves an order record, not permission to keep this filled ledger.
Replace eight old shares with four new ones
Sell eight C at $25: gross proceeds $200, commission $0.10. Cash rises from $10 to $209.90 and C shares become zero. The snapshot assumes sale proceeds are available for this purchase. Actual account buying power and settlement restrictions require separate evidence; total cash alone cannot settle them.
At $50, the $200 stock budget permits four B shares. Including commission, they cost $200.10 and leave $9.80 cash. The purchase meets the $9 floor and the single-name target bound. The instruction is four shares, not spend until cash disappears.
| Stage | Actual trade | Commission | Cash | Holdings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before rebalance | None | 0 | $10.00 | Eight C, value $200 |
| Sell C | Eight at $25, proceeds $200 | $0.10 | $209.90 | None |
| Buy B | Four at $50, value $200 | $0.10 | $9.80 | Four B, value $200 |
| Immediate valuation | Same supplied prices | Already charged | $9.80 | Total equity $209.80 |
Cash plus holdings equals $209.80, exactly $0.20 below the initial account. With unchanged prices, that difference is the two commissions, not a stock-selection loss. Deducting it from equity again would charge the same cost twice.
Target B value divided by pre-rebalance equity is about 95.238%. After execution, $200 divided by $209.80 gives about 95.329%. Costs changed the denominator. Label target and post-trade weights separately instead of treating their small difference as proof of faulty implementation.
Combined sell and buy value is $400. Divide by pre-rebalance whole-account equity of $210 for two-sided turnover of approximately 190.476%. A half-absolute-weight-change convention gives 95.238% here, using the same prices and before-cost holding changes.
If the denominator instead includes only $200 risky assets, the ratios become 200% and 100%. Trading did not suddenly increase. Reports using different denominators or one-sided and two-sided conventions need alignment before comparison.
Check constraints again: post-trade B weight is about 95.329%, below 96%, while $9.80 cash exceeds $9. Both target and realized-denominator checks pass here, but they are not interchangeable. A tighter boundary could change feasibility once fees reduce equity. Specify the constraint's measurement time and retain a post-trade check as well.
Change one execution price
Now change only B's execution price to $55. Before reading on, calculate affordable whole shares, final cash, and why four shares cannot be copied from the baseline.
Four shares require $220 stock value, exceeding the $200 budget even before commission. Round downward to three shares: value $165, commission $0.0825. Subtract $165.0825 from the $209.90 available after selling C. Cash becomes $44.8175, and holdings plus cash give $209.8175 equity.
These figures retain precision rather than round every amount to cents; real charges need their actual policy. Extra cash reflects share indivisibility and price, not a more conservative signal. A later rise cannot retroactively authorize fractions. Fractional trading would need a separate version with a minimum unit, costs, and fill conditions.
If old C cannot sell, the account has only $10 cash. The anticipated $200 proceeds do not exist. Preserve unfilled C as a holding and risk exposure; block or resize B according to the frozen policy. A chart cannot complete the switch without the transaction.
If C exits and no reliable terminal value is available, neither delete the row nor assume a sale at the last quote. Retain identity and quantity, identify the valuation gap, and suspend conclusions needing accurate ending equity. Supported valuation scenarios may be separate, but they are not realized fills. Execution failure is part of the research record.
A high-minus-low spread is still not this account
Factor reports often subtract low-group return from high-group return. That examines group separation. A long-only account does not receive the low group's loss as a profit. Actual short exposure would require borrow availability, fees, margin, and its own implementation. This account holds B and cash.
The benchmark needs the same timeline. The eligible A/B/C/E pool gives an ideal 25% weight in each, excluding D. A comparison of actual net accounts also needs matching initial equity, starting holdings, trading units, cash treatment, fees, and an exported benchmark ledger. Whole shares can prevent exact ideal weights; report that deviation.
This snapshot supplies no later valuations, distributions, or complete exit record. It cannot produce a holding-period net return, and G85's separate gross-return labels cannot fill the gap. It establishes agreement among target, order, fill, and commission under given conditions, not profitable selection.
Capacity remains untested too. Scaling a four-share fill by ten thousand does not establish execution at that scale. Trading volume, spread, and impact evidence would be needed. A small successful arithmetic example cannot answer those market questions.
Save a portfolio record another reader can follow
Retain eligibility and signal version, ranking and ties, capital and constraints, target quantities, order time, actual fills, fees, cash, holdings, benchmark definition, and blockers. Complete the $50 baseline, then a separate $55 variation without overwriting it. These are the application task and its checkable answers.
Hide the worked balances. Can you reconstruct cash from each trade and explain the equity difference? Did an unfilled order become a fill in the report? If using AI, request inputs and intermediate calculations. The three-share variation tests whether it silently overspends instead of merely asking it to declare correctness.
Explanation question: Why can B rank first and still receive no shares?
Rank expresses preference. Funds, share units, tradability, prices, and constraints determine implementation. A useful answer identifies the particular input blocking an order, rather than merely saying markets are risky. That location makes the result independently checkable.
Pass the target through time and cash
Start with how the list was generated, check whether the target is feasible, then trace execution through time and cash. A ranking is not an available return without fill and valuation evidence.
Evaluate performance only after that chain, with an appropriately matched benchmark. This sequence separates an unattractive strategy result from an implementation that never followed the stated rule. Repairing execution should not quietly substitute another selection strategy.
References
- Investor.gov: Executing an Order. Routing, elapsed time, and quantity-dependent quotes versus executions.
- Investor.gov: Types of Orders. Market-order price uncertainty and buy-limit constraints. Snapshot fills and commissions are separate teaching assumptions.
Sources checked October 30, 2026. This synthetic execution record does not validate a real tool or factor strategy. AI-assisted draft; independent AI full-text and bilingual review is complete. Human financial review and target-reader testing have not been conducted and are not scheduled for this production round.