From Raw Signals to Evidence
A thesis is only as good as the evidence under it, and evidence is not the same as data. Data is a hiring post, a queue entry, a filing, a grid reading. Evidence is what survives when you cross three independent sources and they agree. The market rewards those who convert noisy signals into corroborated evidence faster than the crowd, and it punishes those who fall for a single loud data point. I would rather have three quiet signals that triangulate than one dramatic one that stands alone. Build the habit of asking, of every claim: what would have to be true elsewhere if this were real — and then go look for it.
Knowledge check
What distinguishes a raw signal from evidence in this framework, and why does the distinction matter for forming a view?
Show the answer
A raw signal is a single observation (a job post, a queue entry, a filing); evidence is a signal corroborated by independent sources that would have to move together if the signal were real. The distinction matters because single signals are noisy and easily misread, while triangulated evidence is far more likely to reflect a true underlying event, letting you act with justified confidence rather than on a loud but isolated data point.