Rotation sounds like a trading strategy, but that is not how I think about it. The useful question is much simpler: has the relative case changed enough to deserve a review?
Suppose you find a new opportunity that looks attractive. The question is not only whether the new business is good. You already have capital invested somewhere else. So the real comparison is between what you own and what you could own.
That is why rotation belongs after portfolio assessment and opportunity research. The framework can surface situations where the relative case may have changed. A holding may reach its target context, become a legacy position, lose strength in the evidence supporting it, or face a new opportunity that looks materially stronger.
This does not mean every ranking change should trigger a trade. Markets move, estimates change and data can be noisy. Taxes, transaction costs, liquidity and the risk of abandoning a good thesis too early all matter as well.
I would rather have a framework that produces fewer meaningful review questions than one that manufactures activity. More transactions do not automatically mean better decisions.
So Quantvesting treats rotation as a comparison and review process. What I own versus what I could own. If that relative case has changed materially, take another look.
Review first. Understand what changed. Then decide whether the change actually matters.
That is the kind of rotation methodology I want Quantvesting to support.
Rotation still ends in research
The current Capital Rotation Review deliberately sits between what you own and what else exists. It shows the comparison context, while the broader assessment provides the Research Path for investigating the evidence. The product does not turn that comparison into an automatic trade.