Sample report
A complete review document, open and ungated. The figures inside are constructed and labelled as such; the structure and the reasoning are what a commissioned review returns.
Read this before deciding whether the work is worth commissioning. It sits in the open with no email gate and no partial preview, because a sample that has to be requested is a lead form wearing a document’s clothes.
Trading review · Sample document
Execution and method review, fourteen-month record
| Prepared for | Redacted at client request |
| Period covered | March 2025 to April 2026 |
| Closed positions | 612 |
| Instruments | EURUSD, GBPJPY, XAUUSD, BTCUSD perpetual |
| Source | MetaTrader 5 statement, plus exchange CSV for perpetuals |
| Sections | 01 Trade history · 04 Risk and sizing · 05 Execution and costs · 06 Behaviour |
| Method version | Published on the method page, referenced by section throughout |
Every figure in this document is constructed. It is not a redacted client record and it describes no real account. The structure, the depth of working and the wording of conclusions are what a commissioned review returns.
Summary of findings
Four findings, ordered by the size of their effect on the record rather than by section number. Each is stated with the evidence that supports it and, where the evidence is thin, with that said plainly.
Finding 01 · Material
Costs consumed 79 percent of the gross result
Gross profit across the period was 84,300 units against gross loss of 71,900, leaving 12,400 before costs. Spread, commission, swap and funding together came to 9,800. Net result was 2,600 over fourteen months.
This is the dominant fact in the record. Every other finding below is smaller than this one, and any work on entries or exits is premature while four fifths of the edge is being paid away.
Finding 02 · Material
GBPJPY has no surviving edge after costs and should be dropped
On GBPJPY the cost per round turn came to 118 percent of the average gross result per trade. The instrument was gross positive and net negative across 147 positions, which is a large enough sample to treat the conclusion as firm.
Removing GBPJPY from the record and recomputing leaves the remaining three instruments with a net result of 6,900 rather than 2,600. No change to the method is required to obtain that difference.
Finding 03 · Moderate
Position size rose 41 percent after losing days while the win rate did not move
Grouping positions by the result of the preceding session gives a median volume of 0.44 lots after a flat or winning day and 0.62 after a losing one. Win rate on the two subsets was 40.8 and 41.3 percent, a difference well inside noise for these sample sizes.
Re-running the elevated subset at baseline size gives a loss of 1,900 against the 4,300 actually recorded. The reflex cost roughly 2,400 over the period.
Finding 04 · Contextual
Winners were held for a quarter as long as losers
Median holding time was 3 hours 12 minutes on winning positions and 11 hours 48 minutes on losing ones. Mean result per trade was positive at 0.05R while the median was negative at 0.10R, which is the same asymmetry read from the other direction.
No cost is attached to this finding. Symmetrical treatment would change the exit logic itself, and testing that belongs in a strategy logic review rather than in a diagnostic on the existing record.
Sample adequacy
612 closed positions across fourteen months supports conclusions at the level of the whole record. It does not support them equally at instrument level, and the report is explicit about which is which.
| Instrument | Trades | Conclusions supported |
|---|---|---|
| EURUSD | 241 | Yes |
| GBPJPY | 147 | Yes, on costs. Directionally on edge |
| XAUUSD | 150 | Yes |
| BTCUSD perp | 74 | Cost findings only |
The perpetuals sample is too short to say whether the approach has an edge there. Funding costs on it are measurable regardless, because they accrue on a schedule rather than on a distribution.
Section 05 · Execution and costs
Cost is reported as a share of the average gross result on each instrument, not as a total in currency. A total tells you what was spent. A ratio tells you whether the method is working for you or for the venue.
Schematic — illustrative only, not client data.
| Instrument | Cost / gross | Gross | Net |
|---|---|---|---|
| EURUSD | 34% | 5,900 | 3,900 |
| XAUUSD | 62% | 4,700 | 1,800 |
| BTCUSD perp | 79% | 5,600 | 1,200 |
| GBPJPY | 118% | 2,300 | -4,300 |
Funding on the perpetual account accounted for 2,140 of the 9,800 total. It accumulated on positions held across multiple funding windows, and the exported record does not separate it from price movement, which is why traders holding perpetuals for days frequently do not know it is there.
Section 04 · Risk and position sizing
Stated risk per trade was 1.0 percent of equity. Measured against the balance history, the realised figure averaged 1.4 percent, with the gap explained almost entirely by the post-loss subset described in Finding 03.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Deepest drawdown | 18.4% |
| Recovery required from that depth | 22.5% |
| Longest losing run observed | 11 trades |
| Longest run expected at this win rate | 9 to 13 trades |
| Positions held simultaneously, median | 2 |
| Highest correlation between simultaneous holds | 0.81, XAUUSD and BTCUSD perp |
The eleven-trade losing run is unremarkable. At a 41 percent win rate across 612 trades, a run of that length is expected rather than exceptional, and treating it as evidence that something broke would have been a mistake. The correlation figure is the more useful one: two positions held together at 0.81 is closer to one position at roughly double the size, and the sizing model treats them as independent.
What this review could not establish
- Whether the edge changed after November 2025. The subperiod contains 118 trades, which is not enough to separate a change in the method from ordinary variance.
- Whether the fills recorded in the statement occurred as reported. We do not audit venues and cannot verify execution quality against an independent tape.
- Whether the perpetuals approach has an edge at all. 74 trades is too short a record. The cost findings on it stand because they do not depend on the distribution of results.
- Anything about future performance. The record describes fourteen months that have already happened.
Recommended sequence
Ordered by effect size, not by ease. The first item requires no change to how anything is traded.
- Stop trading GBPJPY, or move it to a venue where the cost structure differs enough to change the ratio. This alone accounts for most of the gap between gross and net.
- Fix sizing after losing sessions before touching entries or exits. It is a mechanical constraint and it can be enforced by the platform rather than by intention.
- Separate funding from price movement in the perpetuals record going forward. Two columns in a log, and it makes the next review able to answer a question this one could not.
- Leave the exit logic alone for now. The asymmetry in Finding 04 is real, but changing it is a strategy question and would invalidate the comparison this record provides.
Method references
Each computation in this document maps to a numbered step on the method page: sample adequacy to step 3, cost decomposition to steps 7 and 8, sizing analysis to step 11, behavioural grouping to step 14. Nothing here uses a metric that is not published there in advance.
After reading it
If the reasoning looks like the kind you want applied to your own record, describe your situation and we will say which sections apply and what the work would cost. If your sample is too short to carry conclusions, the reply will say that instead.