ADSK

Committee Verdict

The committee approves opening a position in Autodesk at the Kelly-derived weight of 2.16%, which represents the minimum viable position size within the portfolio framework. The Portfolio Analyst presented a well-evidenced case grounded in 8 prediction markets with unusually high model agreement (0.89-0.97 across all markets), a multi-lens analysis that converged across all 7 completed lenses, and a classification of price-below-value at MEDIUM confidence. The core thesis — that Autodesk's approximately 19x forward PE embeds 5-8% EPS growth while the company delivers 20%+ — is supported by near-term catalysts: a 68% probability of strong FY2027 revenue guidance, 78% probability of margin expansion to 38%+, and 70% probability that RPO growth continues outpacing revenue. The Risk Manager's Kelly computation produced a 2.16% weight after applying the standard quarter-Kelly conservative multiplier, a -0.20 tail risk discount for two markets with moderate tail risk flags, and a data quality multiplier of 0.863 derived from the two HIGH-weight markets. All five constraint checks pass with significant headroom: the position brings Technology sector exposure to 10.1% against a 30% cap, cash remains at 83.4% against a 5% floor, and position count increases to 6 against a 20-position limit. The Devil's Advocate raised three material concerns that the committee weighed carefully. The governance correlation risk — where comp reform, class action, and CEO selling markets are not independent and could fail simultaneously — is the most serious challenge, estimated at 10-15% probability. However, the quarter-Kelly sizing inherently protects against this scenario: a 2.16% position experiencing a 20-25% drawdown would represent approximately a 0.4-0.5% portfolio impact, which is manageable. The NRR opacity concern is valid but the RPO proxy (70% probability of continued outperformance) provides the best available mitigation, and the 30% probability of adverse resolution is already partially captured in the tail risk discount. The NTM growth distortion is the most substantive analytical challenge — organic growth of 8-9% narrows the apparent mispricing — but the margin expansion pillar provides independent EPS growth support that the NTM effect does not distort. The committee's overall assessment is that the thesis is of sufficient quality and the sizing is of sufficient conservatism to proceed. The position is essentially at the minimum position size threshold, which means the portfolio is expressing a measured view rather than a high-conviction allocation. If Q4 FY2026 earnings confirm the operational trajectory (revenue guidance, margins, RPO health), the committee would expect a subsequent thesis update and potential weight increase through the standard process. If earnings disappoint, the small position limits downside while the thesis would trigger a reclassification review.

The thesis for Autodesk has genuine structural strengths: 8 well-calibrated prediction markets with consistently high model agreement (0.89-0.97), a multi-lens analysis that converged across 7 of 7 completed lenses, and an asymmetric risk profile where most near-term catalysts are de-escalation signals. The operational metrics are demonstrably strong, and the competitive moat appears intact for the assessment horizon. However, three material concerns prevent a thesis-robust assessment. First, the governance correlation risk is the single most important challenge — the thesis acknowledges that governance markets are correlated, and a cluster failure scenario (10-15% probability) would invalidate the price-below-value classification entirely. Second, the NRR opacity creates a hidden dependency that the thesis can only validate indirectly; if the RPO proxy fails, four signals cascade simultaneously. Third, the apparent mispricing is materially smaller once NTM effects are stripped out, reducing the margin of safety from 'dramatic' to 'moderate.' That said, the quarter-Kelly sizing at 2.16% provides meaningful protection — this is essentially the minimum viable position, which limits downside even in adverse scenarios. The position is small enough to survive the bear cases while providing exposure to a potentially material re-rating if the Q4 earnings and subsequent governance catalysts confirm the thesis. The sizing discipline, rather than the thesis strength alone, is what makes this acceptable.