One framing I keep coming back to is this: capital allocation and risk allocation are not the same thing. What is happening: Two positions can each be 10% of capital and still contribute wildly different amounts of risk. That matters because portfolio discipline lives in risk contribution, not in capital symmetry. In practice: A high-volatility sleeve can dominate the emotional experience of the portfolio even when its capital weight looks modest. Watch for: The mistake is assuming equal capital weights mean balanced exposures. Useful lens: Before reacting, ask what mechanism would still matter here if the headline disappeared tomorrow. That is usually where the edge is: not in the vocabulary, but in the structure underneath it.