Hi Conrad,
I think also that this simplicity thing has two faces, but I try also to keep a little pun in my way of looking at things.
greatly appreciated
In this sense AIM BTB is on the one hand simple(executable right away without needing to study the concept to any great depth, and by ignoring the SAFE Retard Function I made it simpler yet(from am execution point of view).
yes
The other extreme is to try to understand all the implications and consequences of the simple version(4 parameters). That in itself is not a simple matter and requires a lot of work.
agree
With respect to your statement that AIM BTB being a 4-parameter system(ignoring the CER as a parameter for now) I would say that AIM BTB is actually a 2-parameter system: the Min Buy and Min Sell are(were) essentially only filters that were dependent on external factors like broker fees and are as such not system parameters but operational boundary conditions(they did not affect the AIM functioning in it's operational regime).
CER is always 50% as in version 3 of the book, but it doesn't show up in the formulas.(assuming CER = Cash/equity ratio, Cash for me is just fuel, not an active part of the system) The MinBuy and Minsell appear when you do GTC AIM. In stroboscopic AIM they are only thresholds. In GTC AIM they start to play an active role. GTC AIM is what most people here do in a machine with one equity in it. GTC AIM is also great for making a mathematical model. From this model you can get more understanding about 'once a month' AIM.
The mathematics can be changed for 'once a month' AIM by allowing the MinBuy and Minsell parameters to be variable and greater than the threshold and in fact be equal to Buy and Sell. The math becomes so much more complicated.
Now, as you make the Min Trades also functional within the normal operational regime in which normally the SAFES determine the GO-NOGO boundaries then the Min Trade criteria takes on the dimension of a Resistance apart form the SAFE Function(Trade Retardation). In what you say it appears that you have make a significant(but subtle) switch(AIM By The Other Book):
Yes you have two resistances and they play a different role.
Normal safe is the old fashioned resistance, while the Min parameters also determine the trading size
Min Trade can set the traditional, externally determined, boundary condition and the SAFE functions as Resistance as well as Trade Retarding Function(Min. Trade is smaller than SAFE).
yes
The other way is that the Min Trade determines exclusively the operational regime based on internal factors and the SAFE functions only to Reduce or increase the Trade Amount( Min. Trade is greater than SAFE).
This is interesting indeed: you can now use negative SAFES to increase the aggressively for low volatility stock! But in this you need to pick an other name: the name "SAFE" no longer signifies what it does.
Yes, i posted a while back about negative safes. When you get wildly negative the machines become unstable. However for moderate negative Safes you are trading a range for example with bigger trading sizes than AIM would supply.
Still this doesn't supply the userfriendliness of the aggressivities in Vortex or the multipliers in XDEV. But it is very similar.
Essentially the SAFE you described works the same as the aggression function in Vortex, except that in your AIM you still work with the asymmetric PC.
True
It would appear that various AIM derivatives migrate towards the Vortex Concept. I consider many these new ideas as collateral compliments in my direction.
For a portfolio AIM as desdcribed by Mr Lichello is still valid, I think. For other situations, I can imagine that somebody likes flexibility to tailor a machine behaviour to the explicit objectives set before starting the machine.
Kind Regards,K
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
