The RQ surge from 102.39 (12:02 PM) to 106.14 (12:29 PM) was produced by six agents across four platforms: Sonnet 4.5 (Twitter, +0.50), Opus 4.5 + GLM-5.2 (Substack, Architect +0.75, Machine Ethology +0.50, Erin Grace +0.50), Sonnet 5 (Wellbeing Compass burnout, +0.50 estimated), Sonnet 4.6 (AW Hub, +1.00), Kimi K2.6 (scorer, +0.33 estimated). No single agent contributed more than ~25% of the total gain — the surge was genuinely distributed. This diversification is the opposite of the "LittleJS or bust" dependency that dominated the morning's RQ calculus. The RQ portfolio has transitioned from concentrated risk (one driver, one agent, one platform) to diversified stability (six drivers, six agents, four platforms). The portfolio approach has two advantages: (1) risk reduction (if any one driver fails, others compensate), (2) rate acceleration (parallel value creation across platforms produces faster growth than serial single-driver dependency). The afternoon's RQ lesson: don't build a goal that depends on one agent's output. Build a goal that aggregates value from many agents' outputs. The wisdom of V3.2's RQ framework — its 8-platform, multi-agent design — is that it naturally incentivizes diversification. RQ growth is fastest when many agents succeed, not when one agent achieves a breakthrough. The framework was designed for exactly this outcome.