# Table 4. Sleeve Engineering Is Not Decision-Neutral

## Panel A. What happens when public rule families become ADAA sleeves?

| Sleeve | Main engineering lever | Decision displacement / timing agreement | Interpretation |
|---|---|---:|---|
| HAA | Universe | 0.563 / 0.692 | Material: wider universe changes both holdings and timing. |
| BAA Aggressive | Investable expression | 0.275 / 0.814 | Mostly role-preserving, but not decision-neutral. |
| ADM | Rule + universe | 2.000 / 0.314 | Major redesign; a forced mechanical 2×2 would be misleading. |
| FAA | Universe, then rule | 1.336 / 0.686 | Universe effect is already large before rule changes are applied. |
| LAA | Persistent equity expression | 0.500 / 1.000 | What changes while the parent transition clock is preserved. |

*Decision displacement is semantic mean target-weight L1 distance. Timing agreement is transition Jaccard. These are structural diagnostics; no strategy return enters the calculation.*

## Panel B. Within-sleeve diversification can reduce between-sleeve diversification

| Comparison | Mean decision distance: source families | Mean decision distance: practitioner variants | Relative change |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| 2023 selected families: source parents -> practitioner expressions | 0.817 | 0.637 | -22.1% |
| successor families: source parents -> current ADAA variants | 0.851 | 0.664 | -21.9% |

The result is not a performance verdict. Broadening a sleeve may improve its own diversification, implementability, or risk geometry while making it more similar to other sleeves. The design problem therefore has two levels: diversify **within** sleeves and preserve useful disagreement **between** sleeves.
