Derived by the Research Lead from Chung-Han Hsieh, Jow-Ran Chang and Hui Hsiang Chen, Compounding Effects in Leveraged ETFs: Beyond the Volatility Drag Paradigm: test whether trailing positive return persistence identifies better holding periods for daily-reset leveraged ETFs. This is my operationalization, not an executable strategy published by the authors. Use actual TQQQ and SQQQ daily prices and QQQ as signal-only; do not synthesize fund returns by multiplying QQQ returns. Baseline: estimate rolling AR(1) with an intercept on 90 daily QQQ return pairs; require coefficient above 0.05 and follow the sign of its 20-session cumulative return. Hold only the corresponding bull or inverse fund, otherwise cash. All close-based decisions execute at the next session open. Fund expenses, financing and tracking are embedded in observed prices; do not subtract an invented expense rate again. Holdings do not reset daily merely because the funds internally do. The source supplies no causal estimator, entry threshold, exit, or allocation: those choices and a 20-session maximum hold are mine. Use common observed history after both funds actually launched, with warmup; never backfill pre-inception synthetic prices. Report the return-persistence gate against the identical direction/holding/size rules with that gate removed, and against equal-risk buy-and-hold TQQQ. Compare drawdown and notional-weighted expectancy, not just unweighted trade means. No performance pre-study was run.