A fund manager who's been burned by missing a signal usually overcorrects the same way: more alerts, more forwarded articles, more sources watched. It feels like progress for a while. Then the stream crosses a certain size, and the fund manager is back to the exact problem they were trying to fix, except now it's thirty items deep instead of zero.
More capture was never the actual goal. The goal was always knowing which one of those thirty needed a response today.
Capture solves the wrong half of the problem
Missing a signal entirely and drowning in unsorted signal are different failures that look similar from the outside; both end with the fund manager not knowing what's happening. But they have opposite fixes. The first needs more capture. The second needs less scrolling, and no amount of additional capture fixes that; it makes it worse.
What's actually happening: once enough sources are being watched, the bottleneck quietly moves from "do we have this information" to "can anyone find the one item in here that matters today." Adding a thirty-first source at that point doesn't help. It's one more thing to scan past to find the thing that was actually urgent.
Equal weight is the tell
The clearest sign a monitoring setup has crossed into noise: everything in the feed looks the same. A routine metric update and a co-founder's resignation sit at the same visual priority, in the same list, in the order they arrived rather than the order they matter. At that point the fund manager is doing the real work by hand, reading every item to decide which ones deserve a second look, which is the exact manual sorting the system was supposed to remove.