A score is only useful if you can take it apart. This post does exactly that with one read: AUD/JPY, signed magnitude +65, low confidence. We go field by field, showing what each one means, where the number comes from, and why we surface it the way we do.
This is the methodology made concrete. The doctrine, with one real read tied to it.
The read
Sovereign produces a single output line for every instrument in the universe. For AUD/JPY this session, it reads:
- Magnitude: +65 (on a −100 to +100 scale)
- Directional bias: Favours AUD against JPY
- Driver: Carry Spread
- Trust state: Low confidence
- Freshness: 15 minutes
Five fields. Each one is independently inspectable. Here is what each is doing.
Magnitude: what +65 actually means
A signed magnitude on a −100 to +100 scale. The sign communicates direction of attention. The absolute value communicates how strongly the current evidence warrants a closer look.
It is not a probability. +65 doesn't mean "65% chance the pair goes up." It means the weighted, signed sum of the factors we track for this pair is +65 right now, which the methodology classifies as a strong positive read.
The threshold bands the platform exposes (Bearish −69 to −30, Neutral −29 to +29, Bullish +30 to +69, and Strong beyond ±69) are calibrated against the historical distribution of the score itself, not against price outcomes.
Directional bias, stated separately
This is the directional read for the pair, and it is deliberately stated apart from the magnitude. A magnitude is a quantity of evidence. A bias is a vector. Collapse the two ("the score is +65, so the pair goes up") and you hide most of what matters.
For AUD/JPY +65 the bias is "Favours AUD against JPY." The phrasing is exact: it's a relative read, not a call on either currency in isolation. We don't issue a view on AUD or JPY on its own here. We issue a view on the pair.
Driver: the single largest contributor
The Driver field names the single factor doing the most work on the current read. For AUD/JPY +65 that driver is Carry Spread: the interest rate differential between AUD and JPY, adjusted for the policy path.
In the live product you can open the full factor decomposition:
- Rates & Policy: +20
- Growth & Cycle: +15
- Positioning & Flows: +12
- Volatility & Regime: +8
- Cross Asset Signals: +10
Total: +65.
Carry sits inside Rates & Policy, the largest of the five. The driver field surfaces that, the specific named contributor, not the whole family it belongs to.
This matters because two pairs can read +65 with identical factor totals and completely different drivers. AUD/JPY at +65 driven by carry is a different setup from AUD/CHF at +65 driven by safe haven flow. The decomposition is what tells you which is which.
Trust state: the read on the read
The score is +65. Confidence is Low. Those two fields are independent on purpose. Magnitude says how much evidence points this way. Trust state says how much we trust the evidence.
Three things drive trust state:
- Driver agreement. Are the factor contributors pulling the same way, or fighting each other? On this read several factors point up, but Cross Asset Signals is fragile: USD broad is stuck in a wide range, with no confirmation.
- Input freshness. Is the data current, or are some sources stale relative to the regime?
- Regime stability. Is the volatility regime quiet (high trust) or transitional (low trust)?
For this read the regime is transitional, with implied vol rising into a central bank event, so trust gets cut even though the magnitude looks healthy. A +65 at low confidence is a fundamentally different setup from a +65 at high confidence, and the platform refuses to hide that.
Freshness: when the read last updated
15 minutes since the last update. We expose this for a simple reason. A read fifteen minutes old in a quiet regime is fine. The same read in the middle of a central bank press conference is not. The number lets you make that call yourself.
What the score is not
It is not a trade signal. It is not a recommendation. It is not advice. We have written that enough times across the disclosures that it should be obvious by now. But the form matters as much as the words: a quantity of evidence, with a trust state attached. Never a directive.
The directive layer is your judgment. The score is the structured input to that judgment, and every field in it has to survive being asked "why."
That's the contract. Everything in the methodology exists to keep that contract honest.
