| method | what it scored |
|---|---|
| velocity 2026-08-29 · does how FAST it is moving predict? | yes, and BACKWARDS: the faster it moves when we buy, the worse we do ⚠ 5 factors now agree every 'has already moved' reading is inverted |
| rotation_btc_volume 2026-08-29 · does BTC volume predict money spreading to the board? | monotone; crossover ~5x normal BTC volume ⚠ stage 2->3 (rotation -> prices) does NOT pay in a flat regime and has never been tested in a BTC run |
| money_flow_ledger 2026-08-30 · net dollars per coin, (buy-sell)xprice | moves with price in 153 of 158; the 5 failures are stablecoins and FX |
| room_gauge 2026-09-01 · how big is the tradeable room right now? | BTC far off its day high => 1.7x the money, 1.34x buyable coins, 1.24x bigger moves, and NO directional difference. LARGE room carried 42 run events/7 big vs SMALL 28/3. ⚠ LIVE ON THE BOARD. A measurement, not a forecast. |
| run_anatomy 2026-09-01 · what does the tape show before and at the start of a run? | the 2h before is a FLUSH: turnover 8.15x its own normal, net selling -2.52x, price -1.05%. The first 30min IS the move - every decile negative after the leg, worst where the leg was biggest. ⚠ descriptive only; see flush_conditional for why it is not a filter |
| limit_at_the_pullback 2026-09-01 · is waiting for the pullback worth anything, or should we just buy when the setup fires? | ⭐ REPLICATED ALMOST EXACTLY ACROSS TWO INDEPENDENT WINDOWS AND TWO BAR SIZES: limit +2.726% vs market +1.021% = +1.704pp (30d hourly); limit +1.530% vs market -0.177% = +1.707pp (120d, 4h). Waiting for the pullback is worth about +1.7pp. ⚠ ⭐ this is the operator's 'we bought at the bottom of the pullback', isolated and measured. It is the most stable number the project has produced. ⚠️ It is the ENTRY TECHNIQUE, not a complete strategy — it says how to buy, not what to buy or when to sell. |
| missed_fills_are_the_runners 2026-09-01 · the 16% of pullback setups the limit never catches — are they the good ones? | YES. The 39 never filled went +11.149% over the same span; the 211 filled went -0.555%. The limit systematically declines the runners. ⭐ BUT scored PER SETUP with a no-fill counting as a real 0.0: LIMIT +0.716% vs MARKET (buy every signal) +0.590% — the limit still wins, by +0.126pp. ⚠ ⭐⭐ THIS RESIZES THE HEADLINE. The +1.704pp/+1.707pp 'waiting for the pullback is worth' number is about PRICE GIVEN A FILL. At the strategy level, counting the runners it declines, the advantage is +0.126pp. Both true; only the second is a strategy. |
| entry_exit_matrix 2026-09-01 · an array of entries x an array of exits, matched, with entries-not-made recorded | ⭐ RETRACE DEPTH IS MONOTONE AND THE 4-POINT GRID COULD NOT SEE IT: limit_75 +0.605% and positive against 22 OF 22 exits; limit_60 +0.210% (16/22); limit_50 -0.031% (10/22); limit_25 -0.562% (3/22); limit_15 -0.690% (2/22). The deeper the pullback you wait for, the better. ⭐ EXITS: hold2/3/4 all positive (+0.34..+0.41, 10-12 of 15 entries); trail +0.437% (11/15); hold24 -1.593% (1/15); every target negative; stop3 -0.294% and stop5 -0.647%. ⛔ CONFIRMATION IS EXPENSIVE: turn 2 of 22, turn2 5 of 22, reclaim_vwap 0 OF 22. Best cell limit_75+hold3 at +1.364%/setup is INSIDE a luckiest-of-330 null (+4.478%). 128 of 330 cells positive. ⚠ ⭐⭐ widening on operator instruction immediately paid: 0.25 (the first registered entry) sits in the WORST region and 0.75 is positive against every exit — the more literal reading of 'we bought at the bottom of the pullback'. ⛔ Still read as marginals, never as a best cell. |
| runup_window_sweep 2026-09-01 · the run-up window was fixed at 6 bars and never varied — is it fitted? | NOT FITTED — a BROAD PLATEAU. net by window: 3 bars -1.00%, 4 bars -0.22%, 6 bars +0.85% (registered), 8 bars +0.98%, 12 bars +1.07%, 18 bars +0.48%. Positive and stable from 6 to 18 bars; only the very short windows fail. ⚠ the registered 6 sits inside the plateau but not at its top (12 is). Deliberately NOT moved — changing it to the observed best is the exact fitting the pre-registration exists to prevent. |
| trade_journal 2026-09-02 · can a METHOD be distilled from outcomes rather than assembled from rules? | BUILT, not yet answered. First backfill (Aug 1 onward, 91 setups, 65 settled) immediately REPRODUCED THE CAPITAL FINDING ON A SECOND WINDOW: primary exit 30/65 up, mean +0.744% net unconstrained -- but only 28 were takeable one-at-a-time, mean -0.565% net. THE SIGN FLIPS AGAIN. Two independent windows now agree that the unconstrained number is positive and the realistic one is negative. ⚠ ⭐⭐⭐ THE PREREQUISITE LAW #3 NAMES. 'Distilling needs DECISION + OUTCOME' -- forward_suite records aggregates, so 'what happened during that trade that we could improve on' had no source. A mean and a win rate cannot be interrogated; a journal can. ⭐ The PATH column is the one that answers it: a loser that was +4% before it turned is a different problem from one that went straight down. ⛔ It records and decides nothing; the pre-registered candidates are untouched. |
| portfolio_sizing 2026-09-02 · what does the strategy do under a real capital model — % of equity per trade, capped by the coin, as many concurrent as qualify? | Monotone in risk up to ~50%, then it breaks (over-betting). Candidate A: +11.4% at 5% risk (maxDD -6.0%) · +22.9% at 10% (-11.8%) · +60.3% at 33% (-31.2%) · +89.4% at 50% (-43.8%) · -0.8% at 100%. C: +17.2% / +36.7% / +164.3% / +198.2% / +344.5%. ⭐ COIN CAPACITY NEVER BINDS at this fund size (median $3,206 vs a 10% ticket of $140); only CASH binds, and only above 33% risk. Max concurrent positions 9, but the MEDIAN while in market is 1. ⚠ ⭐⭐⭐ THIS CORRECTED A CONCLUSION I HAD REPORTED. Candidate A read -59% under one-at-a-time and +22.9% under the real model. With an outlier-driven return, HOW MANY POSITIONS YOU CAN HOLD IS THE STRATEGY -- holding six things means six chances to be in the one that runs. ⛔ The risk sweep is a SELECTION: read the shape (monotone then collapse), never the best cell. ⛔ IN-SAMPLE. |
| method | what it scored |
|---|---|
| net_flow_over_turnover 2026-08-30 · same, normalised by turnover | real, but it is a THINNESS TILT not a flow signal, and 5x underwater on cost (+0.118pp vs 0.681%) ⚠ the number was right and the story was wrong |
| btc_negative_stand_aside 2026-08-28 · stand aside when BTC is losing? | cleared -0.49% vs declined -0.06% at 4h - the gate's claim REVERSED, but INSIDE noise (block-level p=0.184) ⚠ ARMED on operator judgement. Unanswerable three times now. |
| strategy_lab_8 2026-08-28 · 8 rule sets scored on the same data | observed spread 1.51pp vs a 5.40pp noise scale - NO WINNER |
| holding_period 2026-08-25 · how long to hold | the edge got monotonically WORSE the longer held (-1.54% at 1h to -5.78% at 6h) ⚠ one day is one sample; this is why every decision is marked at 1/4/24/72h |
| mover_history_30d 2026-09-01 · the history of the big movers - what happens before and as they take off? | THE PATTERN IS REAL: movers show range 2.85x their own weekly normal (vs 1.61x), trade count 2.14x (vs 1.49x), turnover 2.23x (vs 1.78x) - while price is DOWN 1.03% over the prior 6h (vs +0.43%) and closes LOW in its bar. Activity doubles, price does not rise. AUC 0.58-0.60 on three independent activity measures. BUT on unconditioned buyable coin-hours the best is count_x at +0.88pp against a luckiest-of-8 null of 1.26pp - INSIDE. ⚠ the clearest pre-move description the project has found, and the first study run across a range of BTC regimes (3 days >= +3%, best +7.30%). It separates; it does not yet pay. ⚠️ The enriched case-control table reads +9.12pp and OUTSIDE the null - that is the enrichment artifact, caught for the second time in one day, and both tables are printed so it cannot be quoted alone. |
| vwap_gap_inverted 2026-09-01 · does a coin closing BELOW its period VWAP pay? | YES, INVERTED and it clears its null. Bottom decile (closed furthest BELOW VWAP) makes +1.00% over the next 4h vs -0.27% for the top decile - spread -1.27pp against a day-shuffled luckiest-of-8 null of 1.00pp, OUTSIDE. Offset-stable (0.28pp). Net of the 0.681% round trip: +0.32%. ⚠ ⭐ THE FIRST POSITIVE NET THAT CLEARS ITS NULL. But it is best-of-8 and it clears by 0.27pp, so it is a LEAD, not a finding - it needs its own pre-registered confirmation on data it was not found in. Direction is consistent with everything else: buy weakness. ⚠️ Its cousins turnover_x/count_x/range_x all FLIP on the offset guard despite AUC 0.60-0.62 - they separate the label and their money spread is not stable. |
| pullback_entry_sequence 2026-09-01 · THE OPERATOR'S OWN METHOD: run-up, pullback, buy the pullback with a resting limit, exit when it moves again | ALL 9 CELLS POSITIVE at the long horizon in the 30d window; best cell run>=10% / retrace 0.25 gives +2.04% NET at +12h (hourly) and +0.85% NET at +8h (4h bars, 2.6 trades/day) against a random-buyable control of +0.19%/+0.01%. ⭐ HOLD-OUT: split by time, 4h window gives +0.731% net (n=110) and +0.978% net (n=100) — HOLDS IN BOTH HALVES and stably. Offset-stable in both windows. ⚠ ⭐⭐ THE STRONGEST CANDIDATE THE PROJECT HAS. Still INSIDE a luckiest-of-9 null (+1.445% vs observed +0.849%), so it is not declared — but it survives a time-split hold-out, which nothing else has. Needs a PRE-REGISTERED forward test on data it was not found in. |
| pullback_backtest_outcome 2026-09-02 · if we run the three live candidates over the 120-day backtest, what is the outcome? | ⛔ SUPERSEDED IN PART — see note. Under ONE-POSITION-AT-A-TIME (a bound I invented, not a plan anyone proposed): A -59.0%, B +38.8%, C +309%. Under the OPERATOR'S ACTUAL MODEL (risk a % of equity per trade, capped by what the coin can absorb, as many concurrent as qualify) at 10% risk: A +22.9%, B +18.0%, C +36.7%. ⭐ A's SIGN REVERSES -- the capital model was doing the damage, not the signal. ⛔ BUT THE TAIL DEPENDENCE IS UNCHANGED: minus the best 3 trades A is +0.4%, B +0.0%, C +11.9%. A and B are entirely their outliers; only C survives, and C is also the only one whose MEDIAN trade is positive (+2.14% vs A's -0.48%). ⚠ ⭐⭐⭐ OPERATOR CORRECTION 2026-09-02: 'we shouldn't be trading one at a time. we trade as many as should be done that day. we don't trade the entire fund, we decide what the percentage of the total is worth risking then cap it at what the coin can handle.' Both numbers previously reported were wrong models: unconstrained assumes infinite capital, one-at-a-time is the worst possible pairing with an outlier-driven return. ⭐ AND COIN CAPACITY IS NOT BINDING AT THIS FUND SIZE -- median capacity $3,206 against a 10% ticket of $140. Cash only binds above ~33% risk per trade. |
| method | what it scored |
|---|---|
| leverage_dial 2026-08-31 · is coin choice a beta dial turned by the timing call? | S1 PASS r=+0.650; S2 13.6%; S3 FAILS p=1.000 - nothing forecasts the board ⚠ the dial has nothing to multiply |
| book_intent 2026-09-02 · does the RESTING book lead price? | not yet run - the recorder fix lands 2026-09-02 00:05 UTC ⚠ the only column we record that is intent rather than executed history |
| hot_btc_regime — · does ANY current method pay on a BTC >= +3% day? | cannot be scored - the regime has never been in the tape ⚠ ⭐ THE OPERATOR'S STANDING HYPOTHESIS. 1 day in 13; most recent 2026-08-21, four days before recording began. Every row in this registry inherits this limitation. |
| forward_suite 2026-09-01 · run a whole suite of variants live, or just the 2 registered candidates? | BOTH, in two tiers that never mix. Only the 2 registered candidates are judged at the pass line; the family is scored ONLY against 4 predictions fixed in advance (short holds beat hold12; plain holds beat targets; run-up 6-18 beats 3-4; deep retrace beats shallow). A family prediction cannot be met by one lucky cell, so MORE variants make that evidence stronger — the opposite of the selection problem that makes picking a winner from N worthless. ⚠ ⭐ the operator asked for the suite; the two-tier split is what makes it buy knowledge rather than noise. ⛔ Caught before the clock started: candidate B used 0.60 for BOTH the setup and the entry, which is not what the matrix measured (676 setups vs 248) and scored -0.111% in-sample. Corrected with zero forward bars recorded. |
| method | what it scored |
|---|---|
| crash_stand_aside 2026-08-27 · stand aside on a -10% BTC day? | fires correctly, holds through the bottom and the dead-cat bounce, releases 13h later ⚠ BUILT and red-proofed but it GATES NOTHING - nothing consumes the posture |
| maker_side_cost — · does entering as a maker put the surface above the cost line? | at 0.681% taker: 0 of 256 cells positive. At 0.320% maker: 8 positive, best +0.299%. At 0.160%: 42 positive. ⚠ a resting maker order may never fill, and 'waiting loses to the trades it skips' is already measured. A sensitivity, not a plan. |
| method | what it scored |
|---|---|
| rank_climb_trigger 2026-08-29 · does a rank climb predict a run? | every cell negative; trigger-as-run -0.47% vs random -0.18% ⚠ NEGATIVE selection value - the harder it selects the more it destroys |
| old_trigger_climb30_plus5 2026-09-01 · the ORIGINAL system's entry: climb >=30 places AND coin up >=5% | +1h -2.72% (25% win) · +4h -3.16% (21% win) · +24h -2.93%; money-floor only -1.83% ⚠ the worst entry measured. Demanding MORE of the move before acting makes it worse - the same monotone the latency sweep found. ⚠️ The operator's standing objection applies in full: this has never been scored on a hot BTC day. |
| dip_entry_prejump_base 2026-08-27 · wait for the price to return to its pre-jump base? | base-0.5% -> +1.06%/65% win; but LOSES to the trades it skips in 4 of 5 BTC regimes ⚠ the coins that never come back down are the best ones; every waiting rule declines them |
| runner_detector 2026-08-28 · can a never-return runner be detected up front? | run_up_pct AUC 0.709 vs a LABEL, 0.548 vs money; separation vanished out of sample (27% vs 28%) ⚠ the definitional trap, first instance |
| thermometers 2026-08-27 · is the tape hot or average? | AUC 0.46-0.49 |
| buildup_before_moves 2026-08-29 · does participation build before a move? | best AUC 0.497; no column builds; the one difference found was definitional and flat on money ⚠ our data records EXECUTED trades. Build-up in intent would be invisible in it. |
| net_flow_selection_dollars 2026-08-30 · does the largest net inflow coin run? | top decile negative in 12/12; dollar rank is a SIZE rank |
| realised_vol_selection 2026-08-31 · does realised vol pick the coin? | REVERSES to -0.365pp; it is BETA (2.76). Market-neutral is not beta-neutral. |
| btc_direction_readings 2026-09-01 · does any BTC reading forecast the board? | best of six -0.250pp against a luckiest-of-six null of 1.203pp. corr(BTC 1h, board NOW) +0.503, with breadth +0.78 - it IS the board under another name. |
| leg_latency_detector 2026-09-01 · if we stop predicting and just REACT, is anything left? | ALL 16 NEGATIVE NET. Best +0.052% gross = -0.629% net, adding +0.061pp over a random buyable pick. Monotone: the more of the move you require, the more you lose. ⚠ the constraint is COST, not selection and not detector speed |
| flush_watchlist 2026-09-01 · is the pre-run flush a watchlist? | a run follows 0.49% of flushes vs 1.45% of non-flushes - LIFT 0.34x. 1 turned, 100 kept falling. ⚠ P(flush|runner) high, P(runner|flush) BELOW base rate. A base-rate error I had recommended acting on. |
| reversal_sweep_256 2026-09-01 · reverse every part of the entry, 1 at a time and in every mixture | ZERO of 256 net positive. Best (-0.062%) INSIDE the luckiest-of-256 null (+0.320%). No single reversal helps. Reversing the TAPE knob costs 1.30pp. Gross spans 1.701pp - WIDER than the 0.681% round trip. ⚠ the entry choice matters; the whole surface sits under the cost line |
| exit_rules 2026-08-27 · stops and trailing exits | EVERY stop/trailing rule loses; mean drawdown -3.29%; best exit tested is simply hold 24h |
| big_movers_need_a_hot_btc_day 2026-09-01 · do the big movers only show up on a hot BTC day? | NO, but PARTLY. 120 days / 365 buyable movers / 6 BTC days >= +3%. Reaching >=+5% in 4h by BTC quartile: 95% / 99% / 97% / 100% from BTC -6.51% to +7.30% - the opportunity is present on essentially EVERY day. But size does tilt: movers on BTC >= +3% days made +25.61% against ~+17.2% overall. So 'it does not work without an active day' is NOT supported; 'it works BIGGER on an active day' has weak support (24 events). ⚠ ⭐ the 30-day run said the biggest movers were on the WORST BTC days; at 120 days that reverses to a mild tilt the other way. The 30-day read was too small. What survives both: the >=+5% hit rate is flat and high in every regime. |
| five_percent_target_exit 2026-09-01 · 'if we win by 5% at first we can expand the win' — does taking +5% beat holding? | NO. Holding beats the +5% target in both windows: 4h bars +1.53% (hold 8h) vs +0.02% (target); hourly +2.73% (hold 12h) vs +1.65% (target). The trailing exit is worst of the three. Beyond ~8-12h the hold decays and goes negative. ⚠ ⭐ the +5% target CAPS the winners, and the winners are where the money is. Consistent with 'every stop/trailing rule loses'. The answer to the exit question so far is: hold roughly 8-12 hours, take neither a target nor a trail. |