The key thing is that the DARWIN quote and history already reflect indirectly the trading behaviour.
The difficulty is creating the Darwin, not the D-Score itself. The work is in the Darwin quote, and this is where we spent the years of R&D.
If you have a clean signal, the Darwin, you can trust much more any risk adjusted metric like the new D-Score. The numbers demonstrate it.
The attributes complement the D-Score, and we will improve them from now on, too.
If you use the new D-Score as the main criteria to search for the best portfolio of Darwins, the data demonstrate that only a moderate grade in Rs makes a clear difference to improve the composition of the portfolio.
Why? Because if you score poorly in any other metric and you survived to have a long track record, it means probably that is doesn’t matter. Surviving the market seems to be more important than the attributes.
I will never invest in someone with an Mc of less than 8, but it is true that this way I would had never invested in Warren Buffett’s portfolio.
If we penalize the D-Score with a bad grade in Mc, like we do today, Warren Buffett would never come to Darwinex, he would laugh at us. It might be a huge exception, but I consider it a clear example that it is much better to separate the how much (D-Score) of the how (Investable Attributes) and delegate the decision to the investors.