If your system can't work without these manual interventions then I am skeptical that it works at all. If these "high level flags" are so important, then it's nonsensical to say they are only 2% of your system. If they are truly only 2% then just go without them. Go 100% full auto. This would solve all your problems of being exhausted, not being able to make a track record etc.
Look at it like Corporate software company. You will see developers writing code, software architects, project managers, sales people etc. all foot soldiers doing most of the work. Then there is middle level management. Overseeing the Foot soldiers and keeping them in channels and intervening when necessary. Then there is high level Executive management. Making core decisions on Hiring vs firing. Which projects to allocate resources, setting Visions , long term goals etc. etc. It structured like a pyramid. Very less people at top and +80% of resources should be foot soldiers. We always think that bulk of work is done by Developers. why do we even need Executive management? They are just suckers. But that is is not how things works. There is value of each layer. Corporate America had done all trials and errors and still more or less follows similar model. It is proven. Just like that, in my fully automated trading model, bulk of the lower and middle level work is fully automated. System does not need intervention for individual stock entry price or exit price or position size. But High level awareness such as Going how much Long vs Short, OR how much leverage to use? OR minor twists (ongoing) to keep the charts "not to skewed" compare to structure of Market etc etc. I did started this as goal of 100% fully automation. But in my journey i have realized that there are few things AI is not as good as Humans. There is reason why way over 90% Trading funds are driven my Human Fundamental analysis and stock picking just handful stocks and holding it longer time. Is it possible to even do that 2% to fully automation? Answer could be yes. But it will need phenomenal amount of coding, news analysis, sentiment analysis, major Events inclusion in database(e.g. Treasuries meetings), scaling in and out modeling etc etc. I Understand what need to be done, but the scope of work is tremendous and will need Team. and even after doing all that it will be debatable (unprovable) to say that which approach is better. Summary : AI is excellent in crunching big numbers. But for some simple task such as folding laundry, it is pathetic to look at the AI struggle. I am sorry, I tried by best to explain this here. But I am sure it is not enough. Suffice to say, i have my reasons to keep 2% manual aspects.
The exhaustion is not because of the workload of 2%. That is nothing. Just few minutes a week. It is because of "engaging" alone in the process. Not having anybody to discuss it. The mind is running many automated events and thinking about it. Which is useless as it really does not matter. But a single person operation can not stay "disengage". I might get there eventually after some time or may not. Point is, Fully automation does not mean Fully relaxed on Beach sipping cocktails during weekdays. That is only in movies. To realized this personally, one has to reach that point first. It can not be visualized.
One more thing, You are correct in assessment that "then it's nonsensical to say they are only 2% of your system." There is no way to prove what exactly brings in the edge and how much edge is due to which areas of the system. It is like a potion. something could be just a pinch but that is make or break. I could say that 100s of different params that goes in to the system all are important. The combo/Team brings the edge. The 2% reference is to amount of attentions needed for number of decisions made. Way over 99.99% of decisions are made by System fully autonomous. I put in 2% reference assuming what man will be doing will be of high importance.
High level awareness such as Going how much Long vs Short, OR how much leverage to use? The above mentioned items are quant in nature and could be automated. Do you have other examples of what things where the human does better in your trading process?
Thanks for explaining what you meant by 2%. But a more important number to understand is, how much value do these discretionary decisions bring to your system? From what you said, it sounds like you have no idea. I would suggest re-evaluating whether some of the things you mentioned are even needed at all, you may find that they aren't. The ones you mentioned: Going how much Long vs Short how much leverage to use news analysis sentiment analysis major Events inclusion in database(e.g. Treasuries meetings) scaling in and out modeling In my system, these are all automated or some of them I just ignore completely.
I know, I can not quantify how much edge by which param. If you can, congratulations Sir. e.g. in healthcare we do diagnostic tests and we know what test result should be in what range. Just taking supplements or medicines by quantitative measurement is not (*should not be*) the approach. actual Doctor 1-1 visit still has value. We do not understand human body self balancing function (Holistic) in that depth. Only when you know more, you understand how less you know. Congratulations My friend. Your potion is different than mine. from what I understand, there is never unique path to go from point A to point B.
@Sun Light : man, sorry to say, but you're living in a fantasy world. You've got no training whatsoever in finance, no work experience to compensate with and openly admit your edge in the "system" you developed is akin to some religious cult's priest sacrificing chickens for the omens to favor the trades. Ridiculously, instead of at least focusing on what you can achieve at your own level, you dream up fund money in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Word of advice: at least I'd lose than Indian (original ones, not the ones "with feathers") name in your profile, it only adds insult to injury and reinforces the stereotype.
Cultural context but when I see "Sir" it's two things: 1) 99.98% it's an Indian guy. 2) To my ear, the phrase sounds subservient. Use "Mr", it's less embarassing.