\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
\label{sec:discussion}

% TODO content notes:
% - Generalize beyond this one kernel: any vectorized backtester using
%   pandas/numpy rolling/shift operations is at risk of this exact class of
%   bug; it is not specific to genetic-algorithm-discovered strategies.
% - Practical recommendation: every backtesting pipeline should run the
%   noise harness (Section 5) as a standing CI gate, the same way unit tests
%   gate merges — not as a one-off audit.
% - Limitations: the noise harness detects backtest-mechanics leaks; it does
%   NOT detect overfitting to real historical data (that is a distinct
%   failure mode requiring out-of-sample / walk-forward validation,
%   out of scope here).
% - Disclosure note: state plainly that this defect was found in an
%   internal/proprietary research pipeline (Sentinel Research), and that
%   this paper publishes the diagnostic methodology and a minimal
%   reproduction, not the proprietary strategy code itself.
% - One-paragraph conclusion restating the core claim: Sharpe 14.49 on pure
%   noise is not skill, it is a bug signature, and the fix collapsed it to
%   Sharpe -0.25 — exactly the kind of result a noise harness exists to
%   catch before capital is at risk.
