If your platform gives "balanced" and "aggressive" the same verdict, one of you is getting bad advice. Quorum runs the Watchlist Council under three explicit risk profiles, each with its own weighting recipe.
The Watchlist Council is a parallel debate, distinct from the heavy portfolio Council. Four roles, each on a different backbone for orthogonal priors:
Each round runs in parallel. The synthesizer chair aggregates a weighted bet, then a profile filter applies the margin-of-safety floor.
Each ticker is scored across five channels — council, fundamentals, price, cartographer, sector — and the channel weights change by profile:
Plus a margin-of-safety floor per profile that auto-downgrades ENTER → WAIT when the bet's implied return doesn't clear the bar for your tolerance. Exit value is computed as trailing P/E × forward EPS so you can see the upside the council is implying.
Per profile, the daily Watchlist Council sweep produces:
The system also pulls in a politician-buys overlay (public Quiver Quantitative live feed, BUY-side ranked by distinct-politician count + dollar volume) to surface anomalous concentrated interest before it shows up in price.
The Watchlist Council runs against any supported market with the same 4-seat parallel debate and the same 5-channel profile weighting. Add RELIANCE.NS (India NSE) next to NVDA (US) next to 005930.KS (Samsung, Korea KOSPI) next to 0700.HK (Tencent, Hong Kong) on the same watchlist — the daily sweep treats them identically and the profile-weighted ENTER/WAIT chip applies the same margin-of-safety floor against your risk tolerance regardless of exchange.