# Table 1B. Universe and Rule Engineering Can Change the Decision

| Sleeve | Cleanest engineering comparison | Structural result | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAA | Parent rule: parent vs ADAA universe | L1 0.563; timing agreement 0.692 | The wider universe changes the parent rule materially before Top-N/replacement changes are applied. |
| BAA Aggressive | Parent rule: source vs ADAA ETF expression | L1 0.275; timing agreement 0.814 | Mostly role-preserving, but ETF substitution is not decision-neutral. |
| ADM | Parent architecture vs ADAA architecture | L1 2.000; timing agreement 0.314 | Major redesign. A forced mechanical 2×2 would misrepresent the economic rule. |
| FAA | Parent rule: parent vs ADAA universe | L1 1.336; timing agreement 0.686 | Universe expansion alone materially rewires decisions; later rule changes add another material layer. |
| LAA | Parent rule: parent vs ADAA equity expression | L1 0.500; timing agreement 1.000 | Holdings change while the parent transition clock is preserved exactly. |

*L1 is semantic mean target-weight distance after obvious fund aliases are mapped to common economic exposure buckets. Timing agreement is transition Jaccard. No return or performance statistic enters these comparisons.*

## Architecture-level trade-off

| Architecture comparison | Source-family mean decision distance | Practitioner-variant mean decision distance | 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% |

This is not a performance verdict. Broadening a strategy can improve diversification **inside** the sleeve while reducing disagreement **between** sleeves. That trade-off is precisely why family selection and sleeve engineering are treated as separate layers.
