Merge pull request #235 from Edwardchennnn/fix/holder-analysis-two-false-positives

fix(holder-analysis): two false positives rejecting tokens with sound chip structure
2026-11-02 07:46:11 +00:00 · 2026-09-23 17:30:36 +08:00
parent 5c61823fad ff663aa3b9
commit e742b4e830
2 changed files with 184 additions and 23 deletions
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: gmgn-holder-analysis
 description: Token holder chip analysis — deep analysis of holder structure including chip distribution, entry cost, whale/dev/KOL behavior, risk wallets (rat traders, bundlers, snipers), related wallets, smart money signals, and an AI rating based purely on token structure. Use when user asks about holder analysis, 筹码分析, 持仓分析, chip structure, who is holding, or whether a token is safe to buy based on its holder composition.
-argument-hint: "--chain <sol|bsc|base|eth|arbitrum|hyperevm|robinhood|arc|stable> --address <token_address>"
+argument-hint: "--chain <sol|bsc|base|eth|robinhood|arc|stable> --address <token_address>"
 metadata:
  cliHelp: "gmgn-cli token holders --help && gmgn-cli portfolio created-tokens --help"
 ---
@@ -54,6 +54,67 @@ amounts, USD values, and market caps still print — they do not pass through `f
 Percentages on a **total-supply** basis also still print (`burn`, `DEX`, float share itself, and
 the chip-quality buckets), because those denominators are unaffected.

+### "Zero cost" must be proven, not inferred from a missing buy count
+
+`buy_tx_count_cur == 0` does **not** mean the wallet received its chips for free. Measured on
+musebook (robinhood): 38 wallets read `buy_tx_count_cur: 0` and `avg_cost: null`, but **34 of them
+carry a finite `unrealized_pnl` ratio** (+2.7%, +76.5%, +546%) — a ratio that cannot be computed
+without a cost basis — and 32 carry a `fomo` frontend tag, 2 a `gmgn` tag, which is the trace of
+active trading, the opposite of receiving an airdrop. What is actually missing is buy-transaction
+indexing on that chain, while the PnL fields come from a separate computation and arrive populated.
+
+The error was systematic per chain, not per token. Never-bought share of supply, same batch:
+**robinhood 27.0% and 41.2%, arc 26.3%, sol 4.8%.** The 20% airdrop warn gate therefore fired on
+essentially every robinhood/arc token and essentially never on a sol token — a difference in index
+coverage, not in chip structure. Reporting an unpopulated field as a risk conclusion is exactly what
+this skill forbids.
+
+So a wallet counts as zero-cost only when **no cost evidence exists at all**:
+
+```python
+def has_cost_basis(h):
+    return (h.get('avg_cost') or 0) > 0 or h.get('unrealized_pnl') is not None
+```
+
+Wallets with no indexed buy count but a real cost basis are **not dropped from the report** — they
+get their own neutral line, `买入未记录 / Buy count unindexed`, with their float share. The fact that
+upstream did not index their buys is true and stays visible; it just does not drive a zero-cost gate.
+The same predicate now governs the `钻石手 / Diamond` cohort (its stated rationale is "a wallet that
+never paid has no cost to hold through", which a proven cost basis satisfies), the
+`转入筹码未动 / Idle airdrop` line (its "zero cost" caption was a false statement for those wallets),
+and the Top5 sell-risk classification (which was labelling a wallet at +6.6x as "zero-cost airdrop —
+can dump anytime").
+
+Known limit: a genuine airdrop wallet whose `unrealized_pnl` is a huge ratio computed against a
+dust-level cost would be missed here. No second ratio threshold is set for it — there is no measured
+sample to calibrate one on.
+
+### The token's own contract address is not a holder wallet
+
+Upstream returns it as an ordinary wallet — measured on musebook (robinhood): `addr_type: 0`,
+0 buys, 0 sells, 15.01% of total supply, $5.06M, carrying a `fresh_wallet` tag. Left in the wallet
+cohort it pollutes `biggest`, Top10/Top20, airdrop, fresh, risk wallets and Top5 at once, and on its
+own trips the 🔴 danger gate as "largest wallet holds 16.30% — extreme concentration". The largest
+genuine wallet on that token is 4.10% of supply. Controls on the same batch — JOLLY (robinhood),
+SI (sol), ARGUS (arc) — carry no such row, so this is a per-token upstream classification gap, not a
+chain convention.
+
+So the script partitions it out of `normal` and reports it on its own line, **on a total-supply
+basis** (`合约自持 / Contract self-held`), with its own warn gate at >10% of supply. It is **not**
+removed from the judgement: contract-held supply reaches the market as soon as one release
+transaction lands, so it stays visible and still counts toward the rating. It is a warn rather than
+a danger because that release is an observable prior step, unlike a whale who can sell at will — and
+there is no higher danger tier, because only one sample has been measured and a second threshold off
+one sample would be a guess.
+
+It is deliberately **not** deducted from the float denominator. Burn is permanent and the DEX pool is
+the market itself, so neither can dump; self-held supply can. Removing it from the denominator would
+raise every other wallet's percentage on every token carrying this row, manufacturing new false
+positives while fixing one.
+
+The same address is also excluded from the dev sock-puppet map: chips sent back to the token contract,
+or gas paid to it, is not "transferred to an internal wallet".
+
 ### Holder object key fields

 | Field | Type | Meaning |
@@ -61,13 +122,13 @@ the chip-quality buckets), because those denominators are unaffected.
 | `address` | string | Wallet address |
 | `balance` | float | Current token balance |
 | `amount_percentage` | float | Fraction of total supply (0–1). Multiply by 100 for %. |
+| `buy_tx_count_cur` | int | Buy transactions since creation. **Not indexed on every chain — a 0 here is not proof the wallet never bought.** See the cost-basis section above. |
 | `usd_value` | float | Current USD value of holdings |
 | `avg_cost` | float | Average buy price per token |
 | `unrealized_pnl` | float | Unrealized PnL ratio (0.5 = +50%) |
 | `unrealized_profit` | float | Unrealized PnL in USD |
 | `realized_profit` | float | Realized PnL in USD |
 | `profit` | float | Total PnL in USD (realized + unrealized). Also a valid `--order-by` field. |
-| `buy_tx_count_cur` | int | Buy transactions since token creation |
 | `sell_tx_count_cur` | int | Sell transactions since token creation |
 | `sell_amount_percentage` | float | Fraction of total buys that have been sold. Drives the accumulating/distributing verdict. |
 | `sell_volume_cur` | float | USD volume sold since token creation |
@@ -75,6 +136,7 @@ the chip-quality buckets), because those denominators are unaffected.
 | `history_transfer_out_amount` | float | Token amount transferred out (not sold) |
 | `history_transfer_out_income` | float | USD value of transferred-out tokens |
 | `token_transfer_out` | object | `{address}` — recipient of a transfer-out. Used to detect dev sock puppets when the recipient is itself in the top 100. |
+| `native_transfer` | object | `{from_address, amount, timestamp}` — how the wallet was funded. Also the fallback sock-puppet probe: a top-100 holder whose gas came from the creator. |
 | `name` | string | Wallet display name if known |
 | `start_holding_at` | int | Unix timestamp of first buy |
 | `addr_type` | int | 0=normal wallet, 1=burn/dead, 2=DEX/pool |
@@ -104,13 +166,18 @@ All thresholds below are **share of tradeable float**, matching the script. They
 comparable to GMGN's own UI, which reports share of total supply — on a token whose LP holds 56%
 of supply, the same wallet reads 2.4× higher here.

+The Advice section prints **every** triggered reason, not just the first: a ⚠️ Caution rating means
+two or more warns fired by definition, so printing one left the reader unable to see why the rating
+was what it was.
+
 Entry timing pressure (批次浮盈/出货) does **NOT** affect the overall rating — it only affects section display.

 | Rating (ZH) | Rating (EN) | Emoji | Condition |
 |-------------|-------------|-------|-----------|
 | 无法评估 | Cannot Assess | ⚪ | Tradeable float <2% of supply, **or** upstream returned zero holders (all percentage rules suppressed; dev sock puppet still escalates to 🔴) |
 | 不建议买 | Not Recommended | 🔴 | Any: rat traders >5% / largest wallet >10% / dev sock puppet |
-| 谨慎参与 | Caution | ⚠️ | ≥2 of: Dev still holding >1% / airdrop >20% / risk wallets >35% / linked >15% |
+
+| 谨慎参与 | Caution | ⚠️ | ≥2 of: Dev still holding >1% / airdrop >20% / risk wallets >35% / linked >15% / contract self-holds >10% of supply |
 | 可轻仓   | Light Position | 🟡 | Exactly 1 of above warns |
 | 正常参与 | Normal | ✅ | None of the above |

@@ -126,9 +193,11 @@ Entry timing pressure (批次浮盈/出货) does **NOT** affect the overall rati
 | Zero-balance wallets | — | >10% | ≤10% |

 Diamond hands invert (more is better) and use their own emoji set: ✅ >60% / 🟡 >35% / ⚠️ ≤35%.
-Diamond hands require `buy_tx_count_cur > 0` — a wallet that never bought has no cost to hold
-through, so zero-cost airdrop recipients are reported separately as "空降未动 / Idle airdrop"
-rather than being credited as diamond hands.
+Diamond hands require a **cost basis** (`has_cost_basis`, above) — a wallet that never paid has no
+cost to hold through, so genuinely zero-cost recipients are reported separately as
+"转入筹码未动 / Idle airdrop" rather than being credited as diamond hands. The test is the cost
+basis, not `buy_tx_count_cur > 0`: on chains where buy counts are not indexed the latter discards
+most real diamond hands (measured on JOLLY: 34 → 75 wallets, 21.1% → 55.7% of float).

 Linked funding is escalated to at least 🟡 whenever any group was funded within 60s, regardless of
 size — scripted batch funding is a structural signal, not a magnitude one.
@@ -137,7 +206,7 @@ size — scripted batch funding is a structural signal, not a magnitude one.

 Three mutually exclusive buckets over the chips held by observed wallets (denominator is
 `normal_pct`, i.e. total-supply basis, not float): **bought in with no risk tag** / **zero-cost
-airdrop** / **risk-tagged**. They are reported separately rather than collapsed into one
+airdrop** (by `has_cost_basis`, above — not by a missing buy count) / **risk-tagged**. They are reported separately rather than collapsed into one
 "healthy chips" number, because a risk tag means a proven-bad address while zero-cost airdrop only
 means unknown provenance.

@@ -154,6 +223,27 @@ contradict the rating above it.

 `sol`, `bsc`, `base`, `eth`, `robinhood`, `arc`, `stable`

+## Dev lookup is dual-source
+
+`token holders --tag dev` is the primary source, but it returns `{"list": []}` on some launchpads —
+measured on all five bankr tokens in robinhood's 24h trending top 50, while pons_v2 / longxyz tokens
+on the same chain return the creator normally. It can also return rows with no `creator` tag at all
+(measured on a flap token on bsc). Either way the whole Dev section, **including the dev sock-puppet
+danger gate**, would silently go dead.
+
+So when no `creator`-tagged row comes back, the creator address is recovered from `token info`'s
+`dev.creator_address`, and `dev.creator_token_balance` supplies its balance. That call is made only
+when the primary source fails, so it costs nothing on tokens where the tag works.
+
+`token info` does not carry `realized_profit` or `token_transfer_out`, so on the fallback path:
+
+- the realized-profit figure is **omitted entirely** — printing `$0` would report an unmeasured
+  field as a measurement
+- the sock-puppet gate switches judge: instead of "dev's chips went to a top-100 wallet", it asks
+  whether any top-100 holder's `native_transfer.from_address` **is** the creator, i.e. the dev paid
+  that wallet's gas. A hit is reported as the danger and names the wallets; a miss is not reported as
+  clean, since only 57% of holders carry that field on the measured token.
+
 ## Notes

 - `balance >= 1` threshold avoids dust false positives when identifying dev holdings
@@ -72,7 +72,21 @@ with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=4) as ex:
        except Exception:
            NATIVE_PRICE = None

-normal = [h for h in holders if h.get('addr_type', 0) == 0]
+# ── 代币自身的合约地址不是持仓钱包 ──────────────────────────────────────
+# 上游把它当普通钱包返回（实测 musebook / robinhood：addr_type=0、0 买 0 卖、
+# 占总供应 15.01%、$5.06M，还带着 fresh_wallet 标签），于是它一个地址同时污染
+# biggest / top10 / top20 / airdrop / fresh / risk_all / top5，并单独把评级顶到
+# 🔴「最大单钱包持仓 16.30%，筹码极度集中」。剔掉它之后该币最大的真实普通钱包是
+# 4.10% 总供应，离 10% 闸门很远 —— 那个 16.30% 是把合约储备读成了大户。
+# 同批对照：JOLLY(robinhood) / SI(sol) / ARGUS(arc) 的持仓表里都没有自身地址，
+# 所以这不是某条链的固定约定，而是按币出现的上游分类缺陷。
+# 剔除不等于不判：合约自持的供应是可以被释放出来砸盘的，所以它在下方 §自持
+# 有独立的展示行和独立的告警闸门，见 self_pct。
+SELF_ADDR = TOKEN_ADDR.lower()
+selfheld  = [h for h in holders if (h.get('address') or '').lower() == SELF_ADDR]
+
+normal = [h for h in holders
+          if h.get('addr_type', 0) == 0 and (h.get('address') or '').lower() != SELF_ADDR]
 burn   = [h for h in holders if h.get('addr_type', 0) == 1]
 dex    = [h for h in holders if h.get('addr_type', 0) == 2]

@@ -126,6 +140,12 @@ dex_pct  = sum(h['amount_percentage'] for h in dex)
 float_raw   = 1.0 - burn_pct - dex_pct
 float_share = max(float_raw, 1e-9)

+# 合约自持份额，按总供应基准 —— 和 burn_pct / dex_pct 同一口径。
+# 故意不从 float 分母里扣掉：销毁是永久消失、DEX 池就是市场本身，两者砸不动；
+# 合约自持只要一笔释放交易就能进入流通，性质不同。把它扣出分母会抬高报告里
+# 其余每一个钱包的占比，在所有带这一行的币上制造出新的误报。
+self_pct = sum(h.get('amount_percentage') or 0 for h in selfheld)
+
 # ── 流通盘退化保护 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
 # DEX 池（或销毁地址）吃掉几乎全部供应时 float_share 趋零，于是每个 `/ float_share`
 # 都把尘埃钱包放大成两位数甚至 100%：实测过一个未迁移的盘，LP 占 99.9%，一个只握着
@@ -164,7 +184,29 @@ def f1(v):  return v / float_share                                        # 单
 top10    = fs(normal[:10])
 top20    = fs(normal[:20])

-airdrop  = [h for h in normal if h.get('buy_tx_count_cur', 0)==0 and h.get('balance', 0)>0]
+# ── 「零成本」必须有证据，不能由 buy_tx_count_cur 缺失推出 ────────────────────
+# buy_tx_count_cur == 0 曾被直接当成"这批筹码是转账/空投来的、持有人一分钱没花"。
+# 实测否掉了这个推断：robinhood 的 musebook 有 38 个 buy_tx_count_cur==0 的钱包，
+# 其中 34 个带着 unrealized_pnl 比值（+2.7% / +76.5% / +546% 这种有限值），而没有成本
+# 的筹码算不出有限盈亏比；32/38 还带着 fomo、2 个带着 gmgn 前端标签 —— 那是主动交易
+# 的痕迹，和"收到空投"正好相反。真实情况是这条链上买入笔数没被索引，而盈亏由另一路
+# 计算照常返回。
+#
+# 后果是按链系统性误报：同一批实测里 never-bought 占供应 robinhood 27.0% / 41.2%、
+# arc 26.3%、sol 4.8% —— 20% 的告警闸门在 robinhood / arc 上几乎必然触发，在 sol 上
+# 几乎不可能触发，而这个差异来自索引覆盖率，不是代币的筹码结构。把字段缺失当成风险
+# 结论上报，是这个技能明令不做的事。
+#
+# 所以改判：有成本证据的一律不算零成本，它们改走 unindexed 单独一行照常展示 ——
+# "买入笔数没被索引"本身是真事实，只是不该驱动零成本闸门。
+# 已知局限：若某个真空投钱包的 unrealized_pnl 是对着尘埃级成本算出来的巨大比值，
+# 这里会漏判。不为此再设一道比值阈值 —— 目前没有能定档的实测样本。
+def has_cost_basis(h):
+    return (h.get('avg_cost') or 0) > 0 or h.get('unrealized_pnl') is not None
+
+_nobuy   = [h for h in normal if (h.get('buy_tx_count_cur') or 0)==0 and (h.get('balance') or 0)>0]
+airdrop  = [h for h in _nobuy if not has_cost_basis(h)]
+unindexed= [h for h in _nobuy if     has_cost_basis(h)]
 bundlers = [h for h in normal if 'bundler'      in (h.get('maker_token_tags') or [])]
 rats     = [h for h in normal if 'rat_trader'   in (h.get('maker_token_tags') or [])]
 snipers  = [h for h in normal if 'sniper'       in (h.get('maker_token_tags') or [])]
@@ -300,10 +342,13 @@ heavy_sell = [h for h in normal if (h.get('sell_amount_percentage') or 0)>=0.5]
 # 结论还相反。"钻石手"的含义是扛住了浮亏没卖 —— 没花钱买入的地址无所谓扛，
 # 它不卖可能只是私钥在分发方手里。所以要求 buy_tx>0。
 # 空降且未动的那批不丢弃，单独列成 idle_airdrop：它们仍是随时可能出货的零成本筹码。
-diamond      = [h for h in normal if (h.get('buy_tx_count_cur') or 0)>0
+# 判据照上面的 has_cost_basis 走，不再看 buy_tx_count_cur：本节的理由原文是"没花钱
+# 买入的地址无所谓扛"，那么有成本证据的钱包按这条理由本身就该算钻石手，买入笔数有没有
+# 被索引与它无关。idle_airdrop 那行写着"零成本"，对有成本依据的钱包是一句假话，同改。
+diamond      = [h for h in normal if has_cost_basis(h)
                                 and (h.get('sell_tx_count_cur') or 0)==0
                                 and (h.get('balance') or 0)>0]
-idle_airdrop = [h for h in normal if (h.get('buy_tx_count_cur') or 0)==0
+idle_airdrop = [h for h in normal if not has_cost_basis(h)
                                 and (h.get('sell_tx_count_cur') or 0)==0
                                 and (h.get('balance') or 0)>0]

@@ -321,7 +366,10 @@ kol_holding   = [h for h in kol   if (h.get('sell_tx_count_cur') or 0) == 0 and
 smart_selling = [h for h in smart if (h.get('sell_tx_count_cur') or 0) > 0]
 smart_holding = [h for h in smart if (h.get('sell_tx_count_cur') or 0) == 0 and (h.get('balance') or 0) >= 1]

-top100_map   = {h['address']: h for h in holders}
+# 自身合约地址排除在外：dev 把筹码转回代币合约、或给合约打 gas，都不是"转给内部马甲"。
+# 同一个分类缺陷的另一个出口，一并关掉。
+top100_map   = {h['address']: h for h in holders
+                if (h.get('address') or '').lower() != SELF_ADDR}
 creator      = next((d for d in devs if 'creator' in (d.get('maker_token_tags') or [])), None)
 sub_devs     = [d for d in devs if 'creator' not in (d.get('maker_token_tags') or [])]
 dev_realized = sum(d.get('realized_profit') or 0 for d in devs)
@@ -484,6 +532,13 @@ else:
        if hold_pct_val > 0.01:
            warns.append(_( f"Dev 仍持仓 {pct(hold_pct_val):.2f}%",
                            f"Dev still holds {pct(hold_pct_val):.2f}%"))
+    if self_pct > 0.10:
+        # 合约自持走 warn 而不是 danger：这笔筹码要砸盘必须先有一笔链上释放交易，
+        # 是可观察的前置动作，和"一个大户随时可以卖"不是同一种风险；判成 danger
+        # 只是把同一个 🔴 换个名字再发一遍。也不设更高的 danger 档 —— 目前只有
+        # 一个实测样本，凭一个样本定第二道阈值就是猜。
+        warns.append(_( f"合约自持 {pct(self_pct):.1f}% 供应，释放后即为抛压",
+                        f"Contract self-holds {pct(self_pct):.1f}% of supply — sell pressure once released"))
    if airdrop_pct > 0.2:
        warns.append(_( f"空降筹码 {pct(airdrop_pct):.1f}%，来源不透明",
                        f"Airdrop supply {pct(airdrop_pct):.1f}% — opaque origin"))
@@ -626,6 +681,17 @@ airf  = pf("🔴" if airdrop_pct>0.25 else ("🟡" if airdrop_pct>0.1 else "🟢
 riskf = pf("🔴" if risk_pct>0.35 else ("🟡" if risk_pct>0.15 else "🟢"))
 print(f"  {_('转入筹码', 'Airdrop')} {len(airdrop)}{_('个', '')}({fpct(airdrop_pct)}) {airf} · {_('风险钱包', 'Risk')} {len(risk_all)}{_('个', '')}({fpct(risk_pct)}) {riskf}")

+if unindexed:
+    # 中性信息行：这批钱包有成本依据，不是零成本筹码，所以不挂风险色
+    print(f"  {_('买入未记录', 'Buy count unindexed')} {len(unindexed)}{_('个', '')}({fpct(fs(unindexed))})"
+          f"  {_('有成本依据，不计入转入筹码', 'has a cost basis — not counted as airdrop')}")
+
+if selfheld:
+    # 总供应基准，不经过 float_share，所以退化盘也照常打印真实数字
+    selff = "🔴" if self_pct > 0.30 else ("🟡" if self_pct > 0.10 else "🟢")
+    print(f"  {_('合约自持', 'Contract self-held')} {pct(self_pct):.2f}%"
+          f"{_('（总供应基准，已排除在钱包统计外）', ' (of supply, excluded from wallet stats)')} {selff}")
+
 any_risk = any(g for _lb, g, _fl in RISK_GROUPS)
 if any_risk:
    for label, group, flag in RISK_GROUPS:
@@ -637,11 +703,13 @@ elif not no_holders:
 print()

 # Top5 出货风险
-top5_airdrop_n = sum(1 for h in top5_holders if h.get('buy_tx_count_cur', 0) == 0)
+# 三项都改看 has_cost_basis：原先靠 buy_tx_count_cur 分流，在买入笔数未索引的链上
+# 会把有成本的大户写成"零成本转入，可随时出货"，同时把它从套牢/浮盈两类里漏掉。
+top5_airdrop_n = sum(1 for h in top5_holders if not has_cost_basis(h))
 top5_trapped_n = sum(1 for h in top5_holders
-                     if (h.get('unrealized_pnl') or 0) < -0.1 and (h.get('buy_tx_count_cur') or 0) > 0)
+                     if (h.get('unrealized_pnl') or 0) < -0.1 and has_cost_basis(h))
 top5_profit_n  = sum(1 for h in top5_holders
-                     if (h.get('unrealized_pnl') or 0) > 0.1 and (h.get('buy_tx_count_cur') or 0) > 0)
+                     if (h.get('unrealized_pnl') or 0) > 0.1 and has_cost_basis(h))
 top5_selling_n = sum(1 for h in top5_holders if is_selling(h))

 top5_parts = []
@@ -656,13 +724,13 @@ print(f"  {top5_label}  {top5_summary}")
 # 单个最危险钱包（优先级：零成本最大 > 高浮盈最大 > 出货最大）
 danger_wallet  = None
 danger_reason  = ""
-zero_cost_top5 = [h for h in top5_holders if h.get('buy_tx_count_cur', 0) == 0]
+zero_cost_top5 = [h for h in top5_holders if not has_cost_basis(h)]
 if zero_cost_top5:
    danger_wallet = max(zero_cost_top5, key=lambda h: h['amount_percentage'])
    danger_reason = _("零成本转入，可随时出货", "Zero-cost airdrop — can dump anytime")
 if not danger_wallet:
    high_profit_top5 = [h for h in top5_holders
-                        if (h.get('unrealized_pnl') or 0) > 1.0 and (h.get('buy_tx_count_cur') or 0) > 0]
+                        if (h.get('unrealized_pnl') or 0) > 1.0 and has_cost_basis(h)]
    if high_profit_top5:
        danger_wallet = max(high_profit_top5, key=lambda h: h['amount_percentage'])
        mult          = (danger_wallet.get('unrealized_pnl') or 0) + 1
@@ -843,17 +911,20 @@ print()
 print(f"  {rating_em} {rating_text}")
 print()

+# ⚠️ 谨慎参与按定义需要 ≥2 条 warn，而这里原先只打 warns[0]，所以拿到 ⚠️ 的读者
+# 永远看不到第二条理由 —— 评级说"有两个问题"，正文只给一个。全部列出。
 if dangers:
-    core = _("⚠️ 高风险：", "⚠️ High risk: ") + dangers[0]
+    reasons = [_("⚠️ 高风险：", "⚠️ High risk: ") + d for d in dangers]
 elif warns:
-    core = warns[0]
+    reasons = list(warns)
 elif goods:
-    core = goods[0]
+    reasons = [goods[0]]
 elif unassessable:
-    core = _("当前无法判断筹码质量，建议稍后重试", "Cannot assess chip quality right now — retry later")
+    reasons = [_("当前无法判断筹码质量，建议稍后重试", "Cannot assess chip quality right now — retry later")]
 else:
-    core = _("筹码结构正常，未发现明显风险信号", "Chip structure normal — no obvious risk signals")
-print(f"  {core}")
+    reasons = [_("筹码结构正常，未发现明显风险信号", "Chip structure normal — no obvious risk signals")]
+for r in reasons:
+    print(f"  {r}")
 print()

 print(f"  💡 {_('离场信号：', 'Exit signals: ')}{' / '.join(exit_signals)}")