## Context

The prior shadow scaffold proved that delayed mid-zone reentry can happen, but the observed sample was sold at:
- `2020-12-09`
- reason `knife_take_profit_2_glued`
- return about `-0.24%`

The same review also showed strong unrealized continuation after that exit. This suggests the engineering bottleneck may now be exit treatment, not signal discovery.

## Goals / Non-Goals

**Goals**
- Keep RC1 default behavior unchanged.
- Add one narrow exit probe only for:
- entry code `entry_glued_followthrough_reentry`
- `kdj_sell=True`
- `ql_sell=False`
- mild positive repair state
- Make the result observable as a shadow branch.

**Non-Goals**
- Promote the branch to production alpha.
- Relax `ql_rebound_weak_followthrough` or `high_zone_weak_b1`.
- Rewrite the general glued sell family.
- Add multi-factor scoring or large experiment grids.

## Decisions

### 1. Exit treatment is branch-gated and entry-specific
The new hold only applies when the entry itself is a glued followthrough reentry. Regular glued trades are not changed.

### 2. The hold only protects the first mild `kdj_only` wobble
The probe requires:
- `kdj_sell=True`
- `ql_sell=False`
- holding days still early
- `a1` positive
- `b1` only mildly weak
- `c1` still in the mid-zone repair band

### 3. Observation is more important than immediate promotion
Even if the historical result looks strong, this stays a shadow branch because the sample count is still one repaired-trend path.

## Risks / Trade-offs

- [Single-path evidence] accepted; this is exactly why the branch remains shadow-only.
- [Overfitting] mitigated by narrow scope and explicit shadow governance.
- [Default drift] mitigated by default-off config plus existing RC1 hash tests.

## Migration Plan

1. Add config gates and exit helper.
2. Add branch config and daily-pipeline registration.
3. Add review script and fixture test.
4. Run review + full validation and publish acceptance summary.