[codex] Sync TQQQ risk diagnostics

[Pigbibi]

Summary

• Sync TQQQ risk-control diagnostics across snapshot, mapper, and notification paths.
• Preserve 5-day annualized volatility deleveraging, macro-risk, crisis-defense, and market-regime audit fields.
• Align dependency pins for QuantPlatformKit / UsEquityStrategies where applicable.

Validation

• Targeted py_compile checks passed for modified Python files.
• Targeted signal snapshot tests passed for all four platform repos.
• Targeted mapper tests passed where dependencies were available; LongBridge mapper field pass-through was verified with a lightweight strategy_registry stub because local pandas is not installed.
• git diff --check passed for all four repos.
• Cross-platform critical field audit passed.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a8f37847d0

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Preserve new fields from execution annotations

When a strategy supplies these new risk-control audit values under diagnostics["execution_annotations"] (the same normalized path this mapper already supports for signal_display, thresholds, benchmark values, etc.), they are dropped because the new pass-through list is only copied from top-level diagnostics in the loop below. In that scenario the TQQQ notification and signal snapshot never see dual_drive_volatility_delever_applied or its thresholds, so the risk-control line added in this commit is silently omitted; check execution_annotations as a fallback for these fields or include them in the execution-field mapping.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.