diff --git a/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-05-surfer-uncorrelated-universe-design.md b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-05-surfer-uncorrelated-universe-design.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..de97cbdef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-05-surfer-uncorrelated-universe-design.md
@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# The Surfer over an Uncorrelated Universe — Design Spec
+
+> **For agentic workers:** This spec defines WHY and WHAT for foxhunt's strategic pivot from
+> single-instrument seconds-horizon order-book RL to a diversified, days-to-weeks, multi-asset
+> ML trend system. It does NOT implement; an implementation plan follows (Phase 0 first).
+
+**Status:** Draft 1 (2026-06-05)
+**Supersedes (direction):** the seconds-horizon ES order-book RL thesis (measured structurally unprofitable).
+**Branch target:** new branch `surfer-universe` off the current branch (keeps the session's validation harnesses).
+**Capital stance:** $35k is a PILOT to prove the pipeline + edge (paper / tiny live); real book targets ~$100k.
+
+**Linked pearls (load-bearing):**
+- `pearl_surfer_thesis_is_uncorrelated_trend_recognition` — the thesis
+- `pearl_surfer_universe_build_synthesis` — the 8-agent research synthesis behind every choice here
+- `pearl_ofi_edge_uncapturable_by_crossing` / `pearl_passive_mm_knife_edge_ofi_conditioning_promising` — why seconds-horizon ES is dead
+- `pearl_lowfreq_no_robust_edge_on_2y_es` — why breadth/universe is the bottleneck; validation discipline
+- `pearl_omnisearch_synthesis_signal_first_and_mtm_reward` — dense-MtM → portfolio Differential Sharpe reward
+
+---
+
+## §1. Why this, why now
+
+Measured this session (zero cluster runs, ~5 cheap harnesses): on ES, seconds-horizon crossing edge is ~100× smaller
+than the spread; passive MM is adversely-selected negative (winner's curse); intraday has no IC; daily/cross-asset
+edges sign-flip IS↔OOS (overfit). **The bottleneck was the configuration — single instrument × seconds-horizon ×
+order-book microstructure — not the model.** That is the worst possible config for a non-colocated ML participant:
+most-efficient market, most speed-dependent horizon, zero diversification.
+
+The fix is to invert all three: **many uncorrelated instruments × days-to-weeks horizon × trend/cross-sectional
+recognition.** This is also foxhunt's actual "surfer" thesis ("no wave is the same") finally pointed at an ocean
+with enough waves to ride. Breadth = opportunity sourcing: across many uncorrelated markets, some subset always
+has a rideable trend, and uncorrelated rides don't sink together.
+
+## §2. The thesis
+
+A fixed trend rule applies identical logic to every wave. The ML "surfer" reads each unique wave — is it a real
+trend or chop? building or exhausting? what's the sea-state (regime)? — and adjusts. That recognition is the
+legitimate ML edge ON TOP of the trend risk premium. **Breadth gives the floor; ML earns its keep above it.**
+
+## §3. Architecture
+
+**Core design principle (the eval-collapse cure):** the ML surfer outputs **bounded DEVIATIONS from a deterministic
+diversified-trend floor**: `w_i = floor_i + clamp(ML_delta_i, ±δ)`. The model can only add value above a proven
+baseline and degrades gracefully to the floor when it has no edge. It structurally cannot run off a cliff.
+
+### §3.1 The floor (deterministic)
+Diversified time-series momentum: `signal_i = mean over h∈{1,3,12}mo of sign(return_{i,h})` (12mo skips last ~21d);
+inverse-vol size with 63-day EWMA vol; portfolio vol-target 10% annual (rescale weekly on realized portfolio vol);
+weekly rebalance + ≥10%-change no-trade band. Realistic net Sharpe 0.4–0.5 (small universe), DD 15–25%.
+
+### §3.2 The ML surfer (bounded deltas), in confidence order
+1. **Regime / change-point overlay (build FIRST)** — recognizes trend-vs-chop, throttles gross, cuts drawdowns.
+   ML's most defensible edge (DD reduction, NOT return prediction). Lowest overfit surface.
+2. **Cross-sectional tilt (panel)** — ONE shared encoder over all instruments (N×T samples) + per-instrument
+   embedding → continuous dollar-neutral tilt on the floor; gated on rank-IC / ICIR. NOT discrete ranks (a <20-name
+   universe is statistically starved; breadth is recovered through time + pooling).
+3. **Direct return prediction → DEFERRED** (the 64-commit trap; cost-cliff at 2–3 bps = turnover noise).
+
+### §3.3 Reward / objective
+Portfolio **Differential Sharpe Ratio** (Moody-Saffell) + drawdown penalty + turnover/cost penalty — the
+portfolio-level, risk-adjusted generalization of the dense per-step mark-to-market reward (Φ=unrealized-PnL).
+
+### §3.4 Risk / sizing
+Vol-target 10%; inverse-vol within asset class + ERC across classes; fractional Kelly (half/quarter, reuse the
+existing Kelly controller clamped [0,0.5]); drawdown throttle θ; reuse the CMDP overlay as the tail kill-switch.
+Discreteness is binding at micro size: target <0.5 contract → hold 0, carry the residual; $35k sustains ~3–5
+simultaneous 1-lot positions.
+
+### §3.5 Reuse of existing foxhunt assets
+CfC/Mamba2 encoder (shared across instruments + instrument embedding + cross-sectional attention head); RL stack;
+Kelly + CMDP controllers; the determinism foundation; the session's validation harnesses (`scripts/measure_*.py`).
+
+## §4. Universe + data pipeline
+
+**Universe (~8 micros, maximal asset-class diversification):** MES, M2K (equity); 10Y micro-yield (rates — note
+YIELD-based = sign inversion vs price); M6E, M6A (FX); MGC (metals); MCL (energy); MBT (crypto).
+**Data:** Databento `GLBX.MDP3`, `ohlcv-1d` (+ `ohlcv-1h`). **Continuous contracts built in-house:** volume-roll
+(validate vs OI) + **backward RATIO adjustment for the encoder's returns**; keep an **UNADJUSTED** series for
+actual fills + USD reward. NEVER Panama-adjust for a trend learner; NEVER compute reward on adjusted prices.
+
+## §5. Validation gates (the guardrail — non-negotiable)
+
+| Gate | Metric | Pass |
+|---|---|---|
+| SV-G0 | Leakage audit: purge+embargo covers full hold + feature lookback | verified |
+| SV-G1 | CPCV (≥50 paths): 5th-percentile OOS pnl after costs | > 0 |
+| SV-G2 | PBO (CSCV) | < 0.20 |
+| SV-G3 | Deflated Sharpe, deflated by N = ALL trials ever (64-commit + session + this build) | > 0.95 |
+| SV-G4 | IS↔OOS config rank-consistency (Spearman) — the sign-flip detector | > 0 |
+| SV-G5 | Edge survives 2× cost + roll cost | net OOS pnl > 0 |
+| SV-G6 | Capacity/turnover: cost × turnover < fixed fraction of gross | pass |
+
+Every config / seed / hyperparameter is a logged trial feeding N. The 64 failed commits prove N is large.
+
+## §6. Phases (signal-first, cheapest-first, zero cluster until validated)
+
+- **Phase 0 — Floor + validation harness (CPU-only, no ML, no cluster). FULLY SPECIFIED in the plan.**
+  Build the deterministic floor on real Databento micro data; build the CPCV/PBO/DSR harness; measure whether the
+  floor itself clears the gates OOS after costs. **STOP-if:** floor fails SV-G1/G3/G5 → the universe has no
+  capturable trend premium at this scale; reassess (more instruments / more history) before any ML.
+- **Phase 1 — Regime overlay.** Must beat the floor OOS (DD reduction first). Gates SV-G1..G6 vs floor.
+- **Phase 2 — Cross-sectional panel tilt** (shared encoder). Must beat floor+regime OOS via rank-IC/ICIR.
+- **Phase 3 — Full RL surfer** (floor + bounded delta, DSR reward). Cluster only here, gated by all above.
+
+## §7. Scope boundary
+
+**In (this spec):** the floor, the bounded-delta architecture, the 3 ML layers (regime → cross-sectional → RL),
+the universe + continuous-contract pipeline, the validation gates, the phased build. **Phase 0 is the immediate
+deliverable.**
+**Out:** seconds-horizon / order-book microstructure (measured dead); direct return-prediction sequence models
+(deferred until floor+regime+cross-sectional prove out); live-capital deployment beyond a pilot (until ~$100k and
+gates pass); broker/execution automation (separate spec once a validated strategy exists).
+
+## §8. Risks
+
+1. **Capital ($35k below viable minimum)** — under-diversified → trend's drawdowns without its smoothing; micro-cost
+   drag eats Sharpe. MITIGATION: treat as a pilot to prove pipeline/edge; scale to ~$100k for the real book.
+2. **ML adds nothing over the floor** — entirely possible; the bounded-delta design makes that a graceful
+   no-op (you keep the floor), and the gates catch it before any spend.
+3. **Floor itself has no edge at this scale/universe** — Phase 0 STOP catches this cheaply.
+4. **Re-overfitting (commit #65)** — the SV gates + deflation-by-all-trials are the explicit defense; honor them.
+5. **Roll / continuous-contract artifacts** — ratio-adjust + volume-roll + reward-on-unadjusted; validated in Phase 0.
+
+## §9. Decision log
+
+```
+Decision: Pivot foxhunt to "the surfer over an uncorrelated universe" — diversified days-to-weeks ML trend across
+~8 uncorrelated micro futures, ML as bounded deviations from a deterministic trend floor, gated by CPCV/PBO/Deflated-
+Sharpe. Phase 0 (build+validate the floor, CPU-only) is the immediate, decisive, near-free test.
+Rejected: continuing seconds-horizon ES order-book RL (measured structurally unprofitable for a non-colocated ML
+participant — crossing edge 100× < spread; passive MM adversely-selected; daily/cross-asset edges sign-flip).
+Capital: $35k = pilot to prove the approach; real book ~$100k (Carver retail floor; under-diversification = main risk).
+ML scope: regime overlay first (DD reduction = ML's defensible edge); cross-sectional tilt second; direct return
+prediction deferred (the 64-commit trap).
+Date: 2026-06-05
+Falsification (Phase 0): floor fails SV-G1/G3/G5 OOS → no capturable trend premium at this scale; reassess before ML.
+```