Governance · Policy & Constraint Engine

Policy & Constraints

The mandate, continuously compared to the portfolio as it actually stands

Data as of

Oct 5, 2026 · 4:00 PM ET

DEMO DATA

Decision Brief

What changed

Two constraints are outside policy: the technology sector maximum and the digital-asset ceiling. Every other rule is observed.

Why it matters

Both breaches are soft and arose from appreciation rather than instruction, so they are correctable without disturbing the mandate's structure.

Watch / decide

The proposed rebalance returns both exposures inside their limits and leaves no rule in breach.

Confidence 91%

Exceptions first

Soft breach · inside cure periodTechnology18.7% vs 17.0% policy maximum Soft breach · inside cure periodDigital Assets5.8% vs 5.0% policy maximum

Full rules below

Rules monitored

Across 10 mandate categories

Breaches — current

2 soft

Both correctable without a mandate change

Hard breaches

None

No critical limit crossed

Simulation

2 → 0

Current state versus proposed rebalance

Select any rule to inspect the source policy and breach detail

Institutional Mandate versus Portfolio Reality

Institutional mandate

Portfolio reality

Allocation Ranges

IPS §3.1 — strategic ranges by asset class

5 rules

Concentration

IPS §3.4 — single sector, issuer and theme caps

3 rules

Liquidity

IPS §4.2 — reserve floor and settlement capacity

3 rules

Digital Assets

IPS §5.6 — read-only custody, capped exposure

2 rules

Approved Securities

IPS §6.1 — eligible instrument universe

2 rules

Restricted Securities

IPS §6.3 — prohibited and family-restricted names

2 rules

Tax Rules

IPS §7.2 — realized gain budget and wash-sale discipline

2 rules

Account Constraints

IPS §8.1 — entity-level mandates and trust terms

3 rules

Risk Limits

IPS §9.1 — risk score, drawdown and factor limits

3 rules

Human Approval Requirements

IPS §10.2 — decision authority thresholds

3 rules

Current versus after proposed rebalance

Policy Simulation

Breaches — current state2 soft

Breaches — after rebalanceNone

Technology sector18.7% → approx. 17.0%

Digital assets5.8% → approx. 5.0%

Cash reserve12.6% → approx. 13.0%

Both breaches are soft and arose from appreciation, not instruction. The proposed package restores compliance approximately to the boundary — $4.2M of technology (1.69pp) and a $2.0M aggregate digital-sleeve reduction (0.80pp) against $248.6M of AUM. It does not create additional headroom.

Ownership of record

Review Cadence

Investment Committee rules9

Risk Officer rules6

Compliance rules5

Last full mandate reviewJun 30, 2026

Next scheduled reviewJan 24, 2027

From the Analytics Library

Policy analytics

Open library

Policy headroom matrix

Canonical demo data

Headroom to each percentage-based policy limit today (bar) and after the proposed package (grey).

US Equity range+0.8pp

International Equity range+1.8pp

Fixed Income range+1.4pp

Alternatives range+0.2pp

Cash range+3.4pp

Aggregate Technology sector exposure-1.7pp

Single issuer exposure+1.8pp

Correlation cluster exposure+2.9pp

Cash reserve+2.6pp

Illiquid allocation+4.8pp

Digital asset exposure-0.8pp

Family Trust — municipal minimum+0.1pp

Operating account balance+1.2pp

Modelled drawdown sensitivity+1.2pp

TodayAfter package

ReadingTechnology −1.7pp and digital −0.8pp today; both positive after the package. Negative bars are breaches; the package moves both back inside policy.

Policy breach history

Simulated model analytics

Count of open soft and hard breaches at each month end.

SoftHard

Reading2 soft breaches, 0 hard breaches today. Breaches have built gradually with market appreciation — no single event caused them.