Looking back at the September 18 letter, the most useful line is not the account gain. It is the acknowledgement that Sandisk was above the written position cap and that the earlier trim commitment had not been executed. That is the starting point for this stretch of the archive.
I do not want a fuller publishing schedule to make the record look cleaner than the underlying process. A concentration problem does not become less important because the position made money. In fact, a favorable result can make it easier to postpone the uncomfortable review.
The published holdings include memory and semiconductor exposure through SNDK, MU, AMD, INTC, ARM and AVGO. Those names have different businesses, but they can share sensitivity to the same investment cycle. A single-position limit and a thematic-exposure review therefore answer different questions.
I want both questions visible. The cap is a rule about sizing. The theme review asks what happens if several supposedly distinct positions depend on the same demand or financing assumption. Passing one test does not make the other disappear.
This letter was written retrospectively. It does not establish that a trade occurred on September 20, or that no trades occurred during an undocumented interval. I am not going to manufacture a decision log from later prices.
The Blackout Rule and the minimum holding-period policy remain the written standards. A faithful review needs dated transaction evidence before claiming compliance or a breach of trade-timing rules. For now, the honest task is to preserve the unresolved issue already documented, then distinguish subsequent market evidence from decisions I can actually verify.
Aydin Ali
AEA Capital Research