**Dataset**: analyst11
**Region**: USA
**Delay**: 1

# ESG Scores (analyst11) Feature Engineering Analysis Report

**Dataset**: analyst11
**Category**: Analyst
**Region**: USA
**Analysis Date**: 2024-01-15
**Fields Analyzed**: 445

---

## Executive Summary

**Primary Question Answered by Dataset**: How do Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices manifest across companies, and which specific ESG dimensions are materially correlated with financial performance?

**Key Insights from Analysis**:
- **Hierarchical Structure**: Four primary pillars (E-Environmental, G-Governance, EMP-Employee/Social, CIT-Citizenship) decompose into 12 sub-pillars with granular KPIs, enabling multi-level feature construction
- **Multi-Dimensional Scoring**: Dataset provides three distinct aggregation methodologies (simple equal-weighting, correlation-weighted "Hybrid" scores, and max-correlation scores) allowing comparison of raw ESG vs financially-material ESG
- **Peer-Relative Positioning**: Extensive percentile and ranking metrics across industry, sector, and subsector enable both absolute and relative value strategies
- **Temporal Stability Focus**: Score stability and change metrics are critical as ESG ratings exhibit persistence but also momentum effects

**Critical Field Relationships Identified**:
- **Aggregation Hierarchy**: E1+E2+E3 → E → ESG; simple average vs correlation-optimized weighting creates divergence signals
- **Cross-Sectional Mapping**: Raw scores → Industry percentiles → Correlation-weighted percentiles (materiality-adjusted relative positioning)
- **Pillar Interactions**: Governance (G) often acts as an enabler/enhancer for Environmental (E) and Social (S) execution effectiveness

**Most Promising Feature Concepts**:
1. **Materiality-Adjusted Spread** (corr_weighted vs simple score) - identifies companies where ESG practices align with financially material metrics
2. **Pillar Divergence Stability** - measures consistency of ESG profile balance; unstable profiles indicate strategic confusion or transition
3. **Subsector-Industry Position Gap** - micro vs macro peer comparison reveals hidden leaders/laggards obscured by broad industry classification

---

## Dataset Deep Understanding

### Dataset Description
The analyst11 dataset provides comprehensive Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scoring for US equities, combining Bloomberg's ESG research with proprietary correlation-based weighting schemes. It captures not only raw ESG performance across 12 sub-pillars but also financially-optimized scores where weights are derived from correlation to 1-year and 3-year total returns within peer groups. The dataset enables both absolute ESG assessment and relative positioning within hierarchical peer groups (industry/sector/subsector).

### Field Inventory
| Field ID | Description | Data Type | Update Frequency | Coverage |
|----------|-------------|-----------|------------------|----------|
| `anl11_2_gse` | Overall ESG Score (equal-weighted) | Float | Monthly | 95%+ |
| `anl11_esg_totalcor` | ESG Hybrid Score (correlation-weighted) | Float | Monthly | 95%+ |
| `anl11_rocsopgse` | ESG Max Correlation Score | Float | Monthly | 95%+ |
| `anl11_2_e` | Environmental Pillar Score | Float | Monthly | 92% |
| `anl11_2_g` | Governance Pillar Score | Float | Monthly | 94% |
| `anl11_2_pme` | Employee/Social Pillar Score | Float | Monthly | 90% |
| `anl11_1e` | Pollution Prevention KPI | Float | Monthly | 88% |
| `anl11_1g` | Board Independence KPI | Float | Monthly | 93% |
| `sustainability_industry_percentile` | Industry percentile ranking | Percentile | Monthly | 95%+ |
| `corr_weighted_industry_percentile` | Correlation-weighted industry percentile | Percentile | Monthly | 95%+ |
| `environmental_industry_position` | Industry rank position | Rank | Monthly | 92% |
| `totalcorr_subsector_percentile` | Total correlation weighted subsector percentile | Percentile | Monthly | 95%+ |

*(Additional 433 fields include sub-pillar aggregates, sector/subsector rankings, and individual KPI scores)*

### Field Deconstruction Analysis

#### `anl11_2_gse`: Overall ESG Score
- **What is being measured?**: Equal-weighted composite of Environmental, Social (Employee), and Governance pillar scores
- **How is it measured?**: Arithmetic mean of E, EMP, and G scores; each pillar equally weighted at 33.3%
- **Time dimension**: Point-in-time snapshot based on most recent fiscal year data available
- **Business context**: Captures broad ESG commitment but may overweight immaterial factors and underweight material ones
- **Generation logic**: Algorithmic aggregation of underlying analyst-assessed sub-scores
- **Reliability considerations**: High reliability for large-cap coverage; potential staleness for small-caps with infrequent updates

#### `anl11_esg_totalcor`: ESG Hybrid Score
- **What is being measured?**: Financially-material ESG performance where pillar weights optimize correlation to forward returns
- **How is it measured?**: Dynamic weighting of E, EMP, CIT, G based on rank correlation to financial metrics within peer group
- **Time dimension**: Rolling optimization based on historical 1yr and 3yr return correlations
- **Business context**: Identifies which ESG dimensions actually matter for financial performance in each sector
- **Generation logic**: Statistical optimization selecting KPIs with strongest positive correlation to returns
- **Reliability considerations**: May overweight "easy" correlations; sensitive to regime changes in ESG-factor relationships

#### `anti_pollution_policy_industry_percentile`: Industry Relative Position
- **What is being measured?**: Company's relative standing on anti-pollution policies within its industry peer group
- **How is it measured?**: Cross-sectional ranking transformed to percentile (0-100, 100=best)
- **Time dimension**: Recalculated monthly as new data arrives for any peer company
- **Business context**: Enables "best-in-class" screening and relative value strategies
- **Generation logic**: Percentile rank of raw score against industry cohort distribution
- **Reliability considerations**: Sensitive to industry definition changes; assumes normal distribution of practices

### Field Relationship Mapping

**The Story This Data Tells**:
The dataset narrates the tension between "doing good" (equal-weighted ESG) and "doing well by doing good" (correlation-weighted scores). It reveals that not all ESG practices are equally valued by markets—some pillars (often Governance in stable sectors, Environmental in carbon-intensive sectors) carry more financial materiality than others. The hierarchical structure shows how granular KPIs (e.g., board independence) roll into pillars, then into composite scores, with multiple weighting philosophies creating divergence signals.

**Key Relationships Identified**:
1. **Simple vs. Optimized Divergence**: The spread between `anl11_2_gse` (simple) and `anl11_esg_totalcor` (optimized) indicates whether a company's ESG strengths align with financially material dimensions
2. **Pillar Enabling Effects**: High Governance scores often correlate with stable Environmental/Social execution, suggesting Governance acts as a "quality" enabler
3. **Peer Group Granularity Sensitivity**: Divergence between subsector percentile and industry percentile indicates whether a company is truly differentiated or merely following sector trends

**Missing Pieces That Would Complete the Picture**:
- Historical ESG controversy/event data to measure "ESG momentum" vs reality
- Carbon intensity/physical risk metrics to complement policy scores
- ESG rating disagreement across vendors (Bloomberg vs MSCI vs Sustainalytics)
- Corporate actions timeline (when did scores actually change vs when reported)

---

## Feature Concepts by Question Type

### Q1: "What is stable?" (Invariance Features)

**Concept**: ESG Score Volatility
- **Sample Fields Used**: {sustainability_score}
- **Definition**: Rolling standard deviation of overall sustainability score over 12 months
- **Why This Feature**: Identifies companies with stable ESG profiles vs those undergoing strategic transitions or rating volatility; stable ESG often indicates mature sustainability programs
- **Logical Meaning**: Measures consistency of ESG performance; low volatility suggests reliable, embedded practices
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, use ts_backfill to handle missing monthly updates, but limit backfill to 90 days to avoid stale data bias
- **Directionality**: Lower values indicate stability; high values indicate ESG transition or measurement uncertainty
- **Boundary Conditions**: Near-zero volatility may indicate stale data rather than true stability; spikes indicate rating changes or corporate events
- **Implementation Example**: `ts_std_dev({sustainability_score}, 252)`

**Concept**: Pillar Relationship Stability
- **Sample Fields Used**: {prevention_score}, {independence_diversity_score}
- **Definition**: Time-series correlation between Environmental (pollution prevention) and Governance (board independence) scores
- **Why This Feature**: Stable correlation suggests integrated sustainability strategy; breakdown indicates decoupling of governance from operations
- **Logical Meaning**: Measures coherence between "doing" (E) and "oversight" (G); stable positive correlation indicates governance effectiveness
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, use ts_backfill({prevention_score}, 63) and ts_backfill({independence_diversity_score}, 63) to align update frequencies
- **Directionality**: High correlation (approaching 1) indicates governance-quality alignment with environmental execution; low/negative indicates governance failure or strategic pivot
- **Boundary Conditions**: Correlation breakdowns often precede major ESG rating changes or corporate restructuring
- **Implementation Example**: `ts_corr(ts_backfill({prevention_score}, 63), ts_backfill({independence_diversity_score}, 63), 126)`

---

### Q2: "What is changing?" (Dynamics Features)

**Concept**: ESG Improvement Momentum
- **Sample Fields Used**: {sustainability_score}
- **Definition**: Quarterly change in overall sustainability score capturing recent improvement or degradation trajectory
- **Why This Feature**: ESG momentum often leads price momentum as sustainability improvements compound; also captures "ESG momentum investing" flows
- **Logical Meaning**: Rate of change in sustainability practices; positive values indicate improving ESG profile
- **is filling nan necessary**: No, ts_delta handles NaN by propagating; missing data creates valid NaN indicating insufficient history
- **Directionality**: Positive values indicate improvement (potential alpha); negative values indicate ESG degradation (risk signal)
- **Boundary Conditions**: Extreme positive changes may indicate data errors or restatements; verify against days_from_last_change
- **Implementation Example**: `ts_delta({sustainability_score}, 63)`

**Concept**: Relative Rank Velocity
- **Sample Fields Used**: {industry_percentile}
- **Definition**: Change in industry percentile ranking over 3 months
- **Why This Feature**: Captures competitive positioning dynamics—whether a company is gaining or losing ESG leadership relative to peers
- **Logical Meaning**: Relative ESG momentum; distinguishes absolute improvement from keeping pace with improving industry standards
- **is filling nan necessary**: Use ts_backfill({industry_percentile}, 21) to handle monthly calculation delays
- **Directionality**: Positive indicates climbing ranks (outperforming peers); negative indicates falling behind industry ESG curve
- **Boundary Conditions**: Near 0/100 percentiles have asymmetric room to move (floor/ceiling effects)
- **Implementation Example**: `ts_delta(ts_backfill({industry_percentile}, 21), 63)`

---

### Q3: "What is anomalous?" (Deviation Features)

**Concept**: Pillar Divergence Anomaly
- **Sample Fields Used**: {sustainability_score}
- **Definition**: Absolute deviation of current sustainability score from its 6-month rolling mean
- **Why This Feature**: Identifies anomalous ESG events—sudden improvements (greenwashing?) or degradations (controversies) that deviate from historical baseline
- **Logical Meaning**: Statistical outlier detection; measures how unusual current ESG profile is relative to company history
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, ts_backfill({sustainability_score}, 21) before mean calculation to ensure sufficient data
- **Directionality**: High values indicate anomalous ESG events; direction depends on sign of ts_av_diff
- **Boundary Conditions**: Requires at least 6 months of history; newly covered companies will show artificial anomaly
- **Implementation Example**: `abs(ts_av_diff(ts_backfill({sustainability_score}, 21), 126))`

**Concept**: Industry Percentile Outlier
- **Sample Fields Used**: {industry_percentile}
- **Definition**: Distance from industry median (0.5), measuring extremity of ESG positioning within peer group
- **Why This Feature**: Identifies ESG leaders (top decile) and laggards (bottom decile) for best-in-class/divestment strategies; extreme percentiles often mean-revert
- **Logical Meaning**: Relative extremity; measures how far company deviates from typical industry practice
- **is filling nan necessary**: No, percentile is always defined [0,1] if coverage exists
- **Directionality**: Values near 0.5 indicate "average" ESG; values near 0 or 1 indicate extreme laggard/leader status
- **Boundary Conditions**: Values >0.9 or <0.1 typically indicate significant ESG differentiation; industry-concentrated sectors may have clustered percentiles
- **Implementation Example**: `abs(subtract({industry_percentile}, 0.5))`

---

### Q4: "What is combined?" (Interaction Features)

**Concept**: Governance-Environment Interaction
- **Sample Fields Used**: {independence_diversity_score}, {pollution_policy_score}
- **Definition**: Multiplicative interaction between governance quality and environmental policy strength
- **Why This Feature**: Governance acts as an enforcement mechanism; high environmental scores with weak governance often indicate greenwashing, while strong governance amplifies environmental execution
- **Logical Meaning**: Synergy between oversight capability and environmental commitment; captures conditional effectiveness
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, use ts_backfill on both fields to ensure contemporaneous measurement
- **Directionality**: High values indicate strong governance enabling strong environmental performance; low values despite high E scores indicate governance risk
- **Boundary Conditions**: When both are low, product is very low (compound ESG risk); when G is high but E is low, indicates governance resources not deployed to sustainability
- **Implementation Example**: `multiply(ts_backfill({independence_diversity_score}, 21), ts_backfill({pollution_policy_score}, 21))`

**Concept**: Materiality-Weighted Alpha
- **Sample Fields Used**: {corr_weighted_score}, {sustainability_score}
- **Definition**: Spread between correlation-weighted (financially material) and equal-weighted ESG scores
- **Why This Feature**: Positive spread indicates company focuses on financially material ESG dimensions (smart sustainability); negative spread indicates effort on immaterial factors
- **Logical Meaning**: "Smart ESG" vs "checkbox ESG" distinction; measures alignment of ESG efforts with value creation
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, align update schedules using ts_backfill
- **Directionality**: Positive values indicate overweighting material factors (bullish); negative values indicate overweighting immaterial factors (inefficient ESG)
- **Boundary Conditions**: Extreme spreads (>1 standard deviation) indicate significant divergence between market and equal-weight ESG views
- **Implementation Example**: `subtract(ts_backfill({corr_weighted_score}, 21), ts_backfill({sustainability_score}, 21))`

---

### Q5: "What is structural?" (Composition Features)

**Concept**: Pillar Concentration Ratio
- **Sample Fields Used**: {prevention_score}, {diversity_score}, {independence_diversity_score}, {sustainability_score}
- **Definition**: Range (max-min) of pillar scores normalized by overall sustainability score
- **Why This Feature**: Measures balance of ESG profile; concentrated profiles (one strong pillar, others weak) indicate lopsided sustainability strategies vs integrated approaches
- **Logical Meaning**: Structural balance of ESG efforts; high concentration indicates "specialist" vs "generalist" ESG profile
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, backfill individual pillar scores to ensure complete data
- **Directionality**: High values indicate unbalanced ESG profile (potential risk); low values indicate well-rounded sustainability
- **Boundary Conditions**: Ratio >0.5 indicates significant pillar divergence; ratio near 0 indicates balanced but potentially mediocre performance
- **Implementation Example**: `divide(subtract(max(ts_backfill({prevention_score}, 21), max(ts_backfill({diversity_score}, 21), ts_backfill({independence_diversity_score}, 21))), min(ts_backfill({prevention_score}, 21), min(ts_backfill({diversity_score}, 21), ts_backfill({independence_diversity_score}, 21)))), ts_backfill({sustainability_score}, 21))`

**Concept**: Social-Governance Balance
- **Sample Fields Used**: {diversity_score}, {independence_diversity_score}
- **Definition**: Ratio of workforce diversity practices to board independence quality
- **Why This Feature**: Tests alignment between internal practices (diversity) and external oversight (board); mismatches indicate governance hypocrisy or operational-board disconnect
- **Logical Meaning**: Structural alignment between "walking the talk" (employee diversity) and "talking the walk" (board diversity)
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, ts_backfill to handle potential reporting delays between HR and governance disclosures
- **Directionality**: Ratio near 1 indicates alignment; >>1 indicates strong practices but weak board diversity; <<1 indicates board diversity theater without operational follow-through
- **Boundary Conditions**: Ratios >2 or <0.5 indicate significant governance-practice disconnect
- **Implementation Example**: `divide(ts_backfill({diversity_score}, 21), ts_backfill({independence_diversity_score}, 21))`

---

### Q6: "What is cumulative?" (Accumulation Features)

**Concept**: Cumulative ESG Improvement
- **Sample Fields Used**: {sustainability_score}
- **Definition**: Sum of positive monthly changes in sustainability score over 1 year
- **Why This Feature**: Captures persistent improvement ignoring temporary setbacks; identifies companies with sustained ESG momentum vs one-time boosts
- **Logical Meaning**: Accumulated positive ESG change; measures consistency of improvement trajectory
- **is filling nan necessary**: Use ts_backfill to ensure monthly observations exist
- **Directionality**: Higher values indicate sustained improvement; zero indicates no improvement or volatile sideways movement
- **Boundary Conditions**: Capped by theoretical maximum score improvements; high values suggest successful sustainability transformations
- **Implementation Example**: `ts_sum(max(ts_delta(ts_backfill({sustainability_score}, 21), 21), 0), 252)`

**Concept**: Long-term vs Short-term Score Divergence
- **Sample Fields Used**: {sustainability_score}
- **Definition**: Difference between short-term (3-month) and long-term (1-year) moving averages
- **Why This Feature**: Identifies inflection points; positive divergence indicates recent acceleration of ESG efforts above historical trend
- **Logical Meaning**: ESG momentum vs trend comparison; positive values indicate accelerating sustainability focus
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, use ts_backfill to create dense time series before calculating means
- **Directionality**: Positive indicates recent ESG acceleration; negative indicates deceleration or mean reversion
- **Boundary Conditions**: Extreme divergences often mark turning points in ESG ratings; convergence indicates steady-state
- **Implementation Example**: `subtract(ts_mean(ts_backfill({sustainability_score}, 21), 63), ts_mean(ts_backfill({sustainability_score}, 21), 252))`

---

### Q7: "What is relative?" (Comparison Features)

**Concept**: Subsector-Industry Position Gap
- **Sample Fields Used**: {subsector_percentile}, {industry_percentile}
- **Definition**: Difference between subsector and industry percentile rankings
- **Why This Feature**: Identifies companies that are leaders in their narrow peer group but average in broad industry (niche leaders) or vice versa; reveals classification arbitrage opportunities
- **Logical Meaning**: Granularity-adjusted ESG leadership; positive values indicate strength in specific niche relative to general classification
- **is filling nan necessary**: No, both percentiles are calculated on same underlying data with different groupings
- **Directionality**: Positive values indicate subsector outperformance (hidden gem); negative values indicate subsector laggard despite industry average
- **Boundary Conditions**: Values >0.2 indicate significant granularity advantage; values <-0.2 indicate subsector-specific ESG risks
- **Implementation Example**: `subtract({subsector_percentile}, {industry_percentile})`

**Concept**: Correlation-Weighted Relative Advantage
- **Sample Fields Used**: {corr_weighted_industry_percentile}, {industry_percentile}
- **Definition**: Spread between financially-material ESG percentile and raw ESG percentile within industry
- **Why This Feature**: Identifies companies whose ESG strengths are in financially material dimensions (undervalued by simple ESG) vs those with high scores in immaterial areas (overvalued)
- **Logical Meaning**: Materiality-adjusted relative positioning; positive spread indicates "quality" ESG not captured by standard metrics
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, align calculation dates using ts_backfill
- **Directionality**: Positive indicates overweighting material ESG factors (alpha potential); negative indicates overweighting immaterial factors (ESG mirage)
- **Boundary Conditions**: Spreads >20 percentile points indicate significant market-materiality mismatch
- **Implementation Example**: `subtract(ts_backfill({corr_weighted_industry_percentile}, 21), ts_backfill({industry_percentile}, 21))`

---

### Q8: "What is essential?" (Essence Features)

**Concept**: Sector-Neutralized ESG Signal
- **Sample Fields Used**: {sustainability_score}, {sector_position}
- **Definition**: Residual of sustainability score after removing sector average effects via regression neutralization
- **Why This Feature**: Extracts pure company-specific ESG signal by removing sector bias (e.g., tech naturally has different ESG profile than utilities); essential for stock selection within sectors
- **Logical Meaning**: Pure alpha ESG signal; measures ESG quality independent of sector affiliation
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, ensure both fields are contemporaneous using ts_backfill
- **Directionality**: Positive values indicate above-sector ESG quality; negative values indicate below-sector despite potentially high absolute score
- **Boundary Conditions**: Zero indicates exactly sector-average ESG; extreme residuals indicate ESG outlier vs sector peers
- **Implementation Example**: `regression_neut(ts_backfill({sustainability_score}, 21), ts_backfill({sector_position}, 21))`

**Concept**: Max Correlation Efficiency
- **Sample Fields Used**: {max_correlation_score}, {sustainability_score}
- **Definition**: Ratio of max-correlation weighted score to simple sustainability score
- **Why This Feature**: Measures ESG "efficiency"—how much of the raw ESG score is captured in dimensions maximally correlated with returns; identifies ESG alpha generation potential
- **Logical Meaning**: ESG factor efficiency; high ratios indicate most ESG efforts align with value-creating activities
- **is filling nan necessary**: Yes, align timestamps with ts_backfill
- **Directionality**: Values >1 indicate ESG score concentrated in high-correlation factors; values <1 indicate dispersion into low-correlation factors
- **Boundary Conditions**: Ratios >1.5 suggest extreme factor concentration; ratios <0.5 suggest ESG efforts largely misaligned with financial returns
- **Implementation Example**: `divide(ts_backfill({max_correlation_score}, 21), ts_backfill({sustainability_score}, 21))`

---

## Implementation Considerations

### Data Quality Notes
- **Coverage**: High coverage (>90%) for large-cap; mid-cap coverage gaps in certain sub-pillars (particularly CIT/Community)
- **Timeliness**: Monthly updates with 1-month delay; quarterly restatements common for annual report-driven scores
- **Accuracy**: Board diversity metrics highly accurate; supply chain metrics (CIT2) often estimated/industry-imputed
- **Potential Biases**: Sector biases in correlation-weighting (financials may overweight G, energy may overweight E); survivor bias in historical correlation calculations

### Computational Complexity
- **Lightweight features**: Industry percentile deviations, simple spreads (single field operations)
- **Medium complexity**: Time-series correlations, rolling standard deviations (252-day windows)
- **Heavy computation**: Multi-field interactions with multiple backfills, cumulative sum of conditional deltas

### Recommended Prioritization

**Tier 1 (Immediate Implementation)**:
1. **Materiality-Weighted Alpha** - Directly captures "smart ESG" vs "checkbox ESG" distinction; strong theoretical link to alpha generation
2. **Subsector-Industry Position Gap** - Exploits granularity arbitrage; low correlation with standard industry-relative factors
3. **ESG Improvement Momentum** - Captures ESG momentum factor; aligns with institutional flow-driven price pressure

**Tier 2 (Secondary Priority)**:
1. **Governance-Environment Interaction** - Tests governance-as-enabler hypothesis; conditional feature for quality strategies
2. **Sector-Neutralized ESG Signal** - Essential for long/short strategies but requires careful sector mapping validation
3. **Pillar Concentration Ratio** - Risk management feature for identifying ESG lopsidedness

**Tier 3 (Requires Further Validation)**:
1. **Max Correlation Efficiency** - Highly optimized to historical correlations; risk of overfitting to past ESG-factor relationships
2. **Cumulative ESG Improvement** - Long lookback (252 days) may introduce staleness; requires validation of persistence

---

## Critical Questions for Further Exploration

### Unanswered Questions:
1. How do ESG rating changes correlate with earnings surprises or guidance revisions? Does the market react to ESG changes or is it fully incorporated?
2. What is the half-life of ESG momentum? Do improved scores persist or mean-revert over 1-3 year horizons?
3. How do correlation-weighted scores perform during ESG regime changes (e.g., pre- vs post-2020 ESG enthusiasm)?

### Recommended Additional Data:
- ESG controversy/event data with timestamps to validate "anomaly" features against actual events
- Short interest/borrow cost data to test if ESG laggards are constrained shorts
- Institutional ownership by ESG-mandated funds to test flow-driven price effects
- Carbon emissions data (actuals vs just policy scores) to validate environmental "walking the talk"

### Assumptions to Challenge:
- Assumption that correlation-weighted scores are superior; perhaps equal-weighted captures sentiment/flows better even if not financially "optimal"
- Assumption that higher ESG is always better; nonlinear relationships (e.g., only top/bottom decile matter) may exist
- Assumption of sector stability; sector ESG profiles evolve (e.g., tech privacy becoming material), making historical correlations misleading

---

## Methodology Notes

**Analysis Approach**: This report was generated by:
1. Deep field deconstruction to understand data essence
2. Question-driven feature generation (8 fundamental questions)
3. Logical validation of each feature concept
4. Transparent documentation of reasoning

**Design Principles**:
- Focus on logical meaning over conventional patterns
- Every feature must answer a specific question
- Clear documentation of "why" for each suggestion
- Emphasis on data understanding over prediction

---

*Report generated: 2024-01-15*
*Analysis depth: Comprehensive field deconstruction + 8-question framework*
*Next steps: Implement Tier 1 features, validate assumptions, gather additional data as needed*