diff --git a/docs/decisions/0006-pooled-evaluation-of-daily-strategies.md b/docs/decisions/0006-pooled-evaluation-of-daily-strategies.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..76258bc7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/decisions/0006-pooled-evaluation-of-daily-strategies.md
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# 0006 — Daily strategies are evaluated on the pooled sample, never per asset
+
+Date: 2026-09-26 · Issues: #822 (records #338, settles #427) · Status: decided
+
+## Context
+
+A daily breakout strategy trades rarely *per asset*, and that is a property of the strategy
+rather than a defect in the data. It enters only on a new N-day high in a trending regime, and
+holds one position per product at a time.
+
+Measured on this deployment:
+
+- **Five years of backtest** (`keel simulate --years 5`, 2026-09-26, the shipped paper rule set
+  over 19 products): the daily `turtle_breakout` produced **5 to 18 trades per product** —
+  roughly two per product-year — and **220 pooled**.
+- **Forward paper** (the 2026-09-26 preview of the pooled review): **24 closed trades pooled**
+  across three profiles after about five weeks, with no product above 6.
+
+A per-product floor of 100 trades is therefore out of reach, not merely distant. At two
+trades a year, a single product would need about fifty years of history that does not exist,
+or fifty years of forward trading. A gate set at that floor can never be passed, so it
+measures nothing.
+
+The pooled sample is the only one that reaches a useful size. It carries a known cost:
+breakouts fire in herds. #427 measured about **8.4 products triggering on the same day**,
+an outcome ICC of **0.212**, and a design effect of **2.58**. So 100 pooled trades carry about
+**39 independent observations** (`keel/research/throughput.py`,
+`tests/research/test_throughput.py`).
+
+#338 (2026-08-17) had already made the pool the unit of evaluation for promotion. It also set
+a diversity floor, printed beside the per-rule reading. #427 (closed) left one question to the
+owner: keep **n = 100 pooled** as the floor, or raise it to **259+ pooled** (n_eff 101) before
+any evaluation may be confirmatory.
+
+## Options
+
+**Per-asset floor, n ≥ 100 per product.** Statistically cleanest, since there's no
+cross-product correlation to correct for. Unreachable for any daily strategy, as shown above,
+so it would reject every daily rule by construction. Rejected.
+
+**Pooled floor, n ≥ 100 pooled.** Reachable within a backtest, and within months of forward
+trading. Detects only large edges: at n_eff ≈ 39, 80% power one-sided at 5% needs an edge of
+about **20 points** of win rate. It cannot confirm a small edge.
+
+**Pooled floor, n ≥ 259 pooled (n_eff 101).** Makes "n = 100" mean what readers assume it
+means, detecting an edge of about 12.4 points. Forward accrual at that size is years away
+under the Basic subscription's allowance (#427, owner comment of 2026-08-20).
+
+## Decision
+
+1. **Daily strategies are evaluated on the pooled sample, not per asset.** A rule family's
+   evidence is the closed trades of every product running the same parameters, pooled. That
+   holds for backtest promotion (G2, already checked against `__pooled__` in `keel simulate`),
+   for promotion by `keel rules promote` (#338's pooled reading), and for the forward review
+   (`keel research pooled-review`). Per-product statistics are still reported, as
+   **diagnostics** for spotting a product that behaves differently. They are never a gate.
+2. **The floor is n ≥ 100 pooled**, with #338's diversity floor unchanged: at least
+   **5 products contributing at least 10 trades each** (`promotion.MIN_POOLED_PRODUCTS`,
+   `promotion.MIN_TRADES_PER_PRODUCT_POOLED`). `min_trades: 100` in every profile config
+   keeps its value; this record states that its unit is the pool.
+3. **At that floor an evaluation is descriptive.** Every report that applies the floor states
+   its power in words: "at this n_eff this can only see an edge of X points or larger", as
+   `pooled_review.render_report` already does. A pass at n = 100 pooled is never written up
+   as a measured edge, and a fail is never written up as "no edge".
+
+## Consequences
+
+- The daily strategies become evaluable at all. The 5-year backtest already clears the floor
+  (220 pooled). The forward pool reaches it on the timescale of the paper accounts.
+- The price is power. Anyone reading a pooled result at this floor must read it as
+  "an edge, if any, is under 20 points" rather than "there is no edge". Mistaking one for the
+  other is exactly the error #427 was opened to prevent.
+- A **confirmatory** claim — that a rule has an edge, stated as a finding — needs n_eff ≥ 101,
+  which is about 259 pooled trades at the measured design effect. This record does not change
+  that arithmetic. It only fixes 100 as the floor for evaluation.
+- Pooled statistics must be **unit-free** to be poolable. Pooling price-unit P&L lets the
+  highest-priced product dominate the result: BTC's price-unit expectancy was about 17,000
+  times XLM's in the same table. Pooled expectancy is therefore computed in R-multiples
+  (P&L ÷ initial risk, #820). Win rate and trade counts pool as they are.
+- **Reopen** this record if the design effect changes materially: a narrower or broader
+  product pool changes `k`, so the n_eff of 100 pooled moves with it. Reopen also if a
+  subscription tier change makes 259 pooled reachable within a year of forward trading.
diff --git a/docs/decisions/README.md b/docs/decisions/README.md
index b0834db7..5efc90d3 100644
--- a/docs/decisions/README.md
+++ b/docs/decisions/README.md
@@ -17,3 +17,5 @@ by writing a new record that supersedes it, never by quietly editing an old one.
    no](0004-monetisation-not-now.md) · #603
 5. [0005 — keel does not trade options; the permissibility question is not
    reached](0005-options.md) · #637
+6. [0006 — Daily strategies are evaluated on the pooled sample, never per
+   asset](0006-pooled-evaluation-of-daily-strategies.md) · #822