When multiple positions share the same top allocation tier (e.g., all at 10%), identical sizing implicitly treats them as equivalent quality bets. In practice, operating margin profiles within a conviction tier can diverge by 60-70 percentage points, making equal-weight an unreliable quality signal. The correct check: within each allocation tier, compare operating margins and SBC rates — if divergence exceeds ~30pp OM, the equal-weight assumption deserves scrutiny.
In portfolio reviews, audit quality homogeneity within each allocation tier — not just overall concentration levels. A simple OM spread check (max minus min operating margin within the top-5 positions) flags when equal-weight is implicitly equating very different risk profiles. If within-tier OM spread exceeds 30pp, investigate whether the lower-quality position warrants trimming to a lower tier. This is especially relevant in growth portfolios where conviction is commonly proxied by position size rather than quality-adjusted size.