Strategies-Library — Roadmap

Continue this project from here. ## Now names the one active task. ## Waiting on Talbot holds every deferred CEO decision, with what each one gates. The rest is committed work, in order. Uncommitted ideas go in UPGRADES.

Now

Active task: sdc-ip-mdw-strategy-foldin. It has 5 open Next Steps waiting on Talbot. `/task-continue D:\FSS\KB\SDC\IP\Projects\Strategies-Library\Tasks\sdc-ip-mdw-strategy-foldin.md`

1. Finish the Market Drop Wins fold-in

Task: sdc-ip-mdw-strategy-foldin (sized at 3 sessions, 1 done).

§1–§3: the 7 debt strategies added, 5 overlaps reconciled, schema v0.5 (2026-09-22)
Answer the task’s 5 open Next Steps. The compliance routing and the two coined names are the blocking ones.
§4: add the 30 not-debt strategies at domain: not-debt. Re-rank against the Biggest Rocks before starting.
§5: add the Harmful and Not Worth It sets (~30 items). Decide first whether they use a reduced template.
§6: route the 3 practice-tier items to SDC/Offerings/Advisors/Strategies/, not into this library.

2. Make the Worth It view real

effort and benefit on every strategy. This is gated on the first row of Waiting on Talbot, which describes the two approaches that avoid rating ~120 values by hand. Once they are set, one strategy-lint artifact run removes the placeholder banner.
Viewer: predefined audience profiles. Also gated on a Waiting on Talbot row, and should be settled before §4 makes the flat audience list long.

3. Clear it for publication

Risks (Risk-Challenger) review: the risk axis, the §2.4 rewording, and the level-1 filter gap. Owned by sdc-risks-canada-leverage-compliance in SDC/Risks. This review gates any external publication.
§2.4 intervention ceilings: sdc-behavioural-solutions-debt (SDC/Strategy).
Close sdc-strategy-library-v01 (SDC/Strategy): three Strategy-side items remain.
Source gaps: the RRSP “Gross-up document” (blocks IL-6) and the HBP/LLP repayment mechanics (block RA-1). Retrieval sits with Talbot.

4. Publish

Move to the monorepo (sites/sdc) when the library is shared publicly on the SDC website. This was the original plan in the task’s §1.
- The viewer becomes an Astro component. Inter then comes from global.css, so the Google Fonts link (a prototype-only accommodation) is dropped.
- Fix the monorepo’s two brand-entity implementations first (SmartDebt.astro vs SmartDebtEntity.astro). This is a known SSOT defect from monorepo-sdc-text-bug, and the viewer’s port follows the second one.
Per-jurisdiction and per-language variants. See UPGRADES.

Waiting on Talbot

These are decisions that are the CEO’s to make but aren’t worth stopping work for. Each row names what it gates, so the cost of leaving it is visible. An agent adds a row when it defers a decision rather than answering it. Talbot answers in place; the answered row then moves to the current log. A row that has blocked nothing for a quarter should be deleted, not carried. This section is reviewed monthly (Core/Processes/Projects/KB-OS/Routines.md).

Folded in from Talbot-Later.md on 2026-09-23. Answered decisions from before then are recorded in SDC/IP/Logs/2026-09-23_Strategies-Library-Task-to-Ongoing-Project.md.

Added	Decision	What it gates	Notes
2026-09-21	`effort` and `benefit` for all 32 strategies (was 25; the fold-in added 7)	The Worth It view — both its axes are empty, so the benefit-per-effort chart cannot be built.	Two ways to do it without rating 50 values by hand: approve a rubric and `effort` derives from `complexity` (`capital-required` was cut in v0.4, so `complexity` is now the only input — the rubric needs re-stating before it can run); and rank the 25 by confident benefit, which buckets into four values. Deliberately not guessed — MDW-review measured a comparable set at 2.0–4.2× optimistic.
2026-09-21	Review each strategy’s `risk-level`	Nothing today. The scale is settled; what is unreviewed is whether each of the 32 sits at the right level.	Separate from the Risks review below — this one is your own read of the assignments. The 7 added on 2026-09-22 are the ones worth reading first, since Market Drop Wins’ own T-tiers disagree with `risk-level` in both directions and every one was re-tiered from scratch. Two of them are contested and have their own row below.
2026-09-21	Review the `audience` values	Nothing today; it becomes a filter in the published artifact.	Assigned by Claude from each strategy’s own `## Who it may suit` section — derivation, not sourcing.
2026-09-21	Risks (Risk-Challenger) review of the risk axis	Nothing internal. It gates publishing anything leverage-related, per `SDC/IP/JOB_DESCRIPTION.md`.	Not a decision about the scale — you already set that. It is a compliance review of whether the scale and its Rule 1 intervention mapping are defensible to a regulator. Now also covers the 2026-09-22 §2.4 rewording (consider separated from act), which you set and Risks has not seen. Routes to `sdc-risks-canada-leverage-compliance`.
2026-09-22	Viewer: predefined audience profiles	Nothing today. It is the F.A.S.T. upgrade to the audience filter — one click instead of composing filters.	Talbot’s shape: `investor: mid/high-income, accumulator/retiree`. Today the filter is a flat chip row over the `audience` values actually in use. Profiles need deciding before the MDW fold-in adds 30 more strategies and the flat list gets long.
2026-09-22	⚠ A second criterion for the Risks compliance filter	Publishing rrsp-gross-up-loan and non-callable-first. Both are level 1, both are about borrowing, and `risk-level >= 2` catches neither.	SCHEMA §2.3’s named test came back positive during the fold-in — the gap is real, not hypothetical, and it opened at level 1, one band wider than the charter predicted. Drafted proposal: the filter becomes `risk-level >= 2` OR the strategy’s mechanism involves borrowing. Whether that is the `leverage` field restored or a derived test is yours. Risks first, then you — the IP charter’s inherited gate. Until then both records are hand-routed and carry the flag in their own bodies. Routes to `sdc-risks-canada-leverage-compliance`.
2026-09-22	Two coined names	Publication. SCHEMA §1.1 makes a rename a CEO decision because it breaks every citation.	(a) Non-Callable First for MDW’s non-callable loan structure selection — new coinage, no collision. (b) RRSP Gross-Up Loan — a genuine collision, not a preference: your own corpus uses gross-up refund for the loan-free variant and top-up loan for the loan, while Market Drop Wins uses RRSP Gross-up for the loan. Shipping the bare MDW name makes two different strategies share one word permanently. Both prior labels are held as redirects in the record’s `## Variants`.
2026-09-22	Two contested tiers from the fold-in	Nothing today; both are drafted and in the library. It gates the per-strategy risk-level review above and the Risks review.	post-decline-deployment held at 3 for consistency with buy-more-low — but a fully pre-committed threshold rule executed through a non-callable facility arguably fails the timing-judgement test and belongs at 2. Recorded as that record’s own open question. pre-decline-deleveraging at 0, which under §2.4 permits a forced choice — worth confirming you want deleveraging pushed that hard.
2026-09-22	Where is the Gross-up document?	rrsp-gross-up-loan getting past `evidence-status: documented`, and its external publication.	return-to-office-plan-v1 §5 names “the Gross-up document” as the strategy’s full-state source. It is not in the vault — searched vault-wide 2026-09-22. The record is reconstructed from the `sd-math` gross-up formula plus Market Drop Wins’ one paragraph, which is thin for what that source calls “the single best bridge” into Smart Debt. Not a decision so much as a retrieval — but only you know where it is.
2026-09-21	Review `evidence-status`	Nothing today. It is what separates the three `sd-math`-verified strategies from the two unsourced stubs, and the second T in F.A.S.T.T. rests on it.	Kept “for now” on 2026-09-21 with a review reminder requested. Revisit once the MDW fold-in has added ~37 more strategies and you can see whether the field is doing work at scale.