════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  CHECK 1: Double Discount @ 1-year — ROIC filter sensitivity
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Full sample:  n=50, hits=28, accuracy=56%, binomial p = 0.2399
ROIC > 15%:   n=42, hits=24, accuracy=57%, binomial p = 0.2204

All Double Discount @ 1yr rows (sorted by ROIC):
  ticker   FY  sector                      ROIC  excess (1y)  hit
  DHR    2015  Healthcare                    8%       -25.9pp  0
  VZ     2016  Communication Services        9%       -20.3pp  0
  VZ     2017  Communication Services       10%       +12.5pp  1
  VZ     2015  Communication Services       11%        +5.9pp  1
  ECL    2021  Materials                    12%       -18.5pp  0
  XOM    2012  Energy                       14%       -12.8pp  0
  COP    2021  Energy                       14%       +83.3pp  1
  ECL    2017  Materials                    14%       +16.1pp  1
  XOM    2022  Energy                       16%       -33.8pp  0
  TYL    2018  Technology                   17%       +32.7pp  1
  PPG    2014  Materials                    17%       -56.5pp  0
  HON    2015  Industrials                  19%        +2.2pp  1
  INTC   2012  Technology                   19%        -4.8pp  0
  MRK    2021  Healthcare                   19%       +64.5pp  1
  DHR    2011  Healthcare                   21%        +5.3pp  1
  CPRT   2013  Industrials                  23%       -11.8pp  0
  META   2022  Communication Services       24%      +170.8pp  1
  INTC   2011  Technology                   24%       -28.3pp  0
  SBUX   2012  Consumer Discretionary       27%       +34.9pp  1
  AMGN   2012  Healthcare                   29%        +2.7pp  1
  HD     2021  Consumer Discretionary       30%       +13.8pp  1
  TDG    2013  Industrials                  30%       +15.6pp  1
  UNH    2020  Healthcare                   30%       +16.2pp  1
  SBUX   2018  Consumer Discretionary       32%       +53.2pp  1
  UNH    2019  Healthcare                   34%        +3.1pp  1
  SHW    2016  Materials                    35%       +33.3pp  1
  CPRT   2020  Industrials                  35%       +23.5pp  1
  CPRT   2019  Industrials                  35%       +10.5pp  1
  TDG    2018  Industrials                  37%       +37.6pp  1
  AMAT   2020  Technology                   37%       +90.3pp  1
  UNH    2012  Healthcare                   38%        +9.1pp  1
  UNH    2011  Healthcare                   38%        -6.4pp  0
  TDG    2019  Industrials                  39%       -21.5pp  0
  MCO    2020  Financial Services           41%        +7.5pp  1
  META   2024  Communication Services       43%        -3.6pp  0
  MCO    2011  Financial Services           44%       +35.7pp  1
  MCO    2021  Financial Services           45%        -9.2pp  0
  SPGI   2015  Financial Services           46%        -0.6pp  0
  MCO    2012  Financial Services           50%       +26.3pp  1
  ADBE   2021  Technology                   61%       -34.4pp  0
  MCO    2014  Financial Services           61%        +5.5pp  1
  MSFT   2013  Technology                   62%        -1.3pp  0
  AAPL   2013  Technology                   67%       -96.5pp  0
  MSCI   2021  Financial Services           68%        -4.6pp  0
  ADBE   2018  Technology                   78%        +9.4pp  1
  ISRG   2011  Healthcare                   83%        -7.5pp  0
  TXN    2022  Technology                   84%       -21.2pp  0
  ISRG   2012  Healthcare                   90%       -51.4pp  0
  TXN    2021  Technology                   93%        +7.2pp  1
  AAPL   2012  Technology                  122%       -45.1pp  0

ROIC > 15% filter drops 8 rows (4 hits / 4 misses).
  Dropped tickers: COP, DHR, ECL, VZ, XOM

→ HQ-filter accuracy 57% vs full-sample 56%: ROBUST (close)


════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  CHECK 2: Expensive Hype accuracy improves with horizon?
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

All comparisons are bootstrap tests of H₀: shorter-horizon ≥ longer-horizon
p < 0.05 ⇒ the longer-horizon accuracy is *statistically* higher.

 horizon     n   hits    acc           95% CI
      1yr   120     65    54%  [ 45%,  63%]
      2yr   109     59    54%  [ 45%,  63%]
      3yr    95     52    55%  [ 45%,  64%]
      5yr    79     45    57%  [ 46%,  67%]
      7yr    56     34    61%  [ 48%,  73%]
     10yr    28     22    79%  [ 64%,  93%]

Pairwise bootstrap tests (H₀: accuracy_short ≥ accuracy_long):
              pair    Δ accuracy    bootstrap p
     1yr vs    2yr          -0pp       0.5021 
     1yr vs    3yr          +1pp       0.4597 
     1yr vs    5yr          +3pp       0.3488 
     1yr vs    7yr          +7pp       0.2052 
     1yr vs   10yr         +24pp       0.0037 ***
     2yr vs    3yr          +1pp       0.4520 
     2yr vs    5yr          +3pp       0.3483 
     2yr vs    7yr          +7pp       0.2107 
     2yr vs   10yr         +24pp       0.0040 ***
     3yr vs    5yr          +2pp       0.3831 
     3yr vs    7yr          +6pp       0.2439 
     3yr vs   10yr         +24pp       0.0081 ***
     5yr vs    7yr          +4pp       0.3251 
     5yr vs   10yr         +22pp       0.0136 **
     7yr vs   10yr         +18pp       0.0494 **

→ 1yr vs 5yr: Δ +3pp accuracy, p = 0.349
→ 1yr vs 7yr: Δ +7pp accuracy, p = 0.205

Legend: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.10
