How we judge a pass-the-challenge plan
Each of the five tests is applied the same way to every style of trading, and a test scores as passed only when a trader could hold to it under pressure — not just on a calm day.
The scoring is deliberately plain: tally which of the five tests an approach still holds when a session turns against it, because that is the moment an evaluation is decided. Nothing in the tally is weighted by referral money and no firm can buy a place in it. The aim is to reward whatever survives a rough week over whatever merely looks good in a smooth one — so a quiet, disciplined plan beats a flashy one that needs every break to fall its way.
The five tests
1. Respecting the maximum drawdown
Risk per trade small and fixed, so a realistic losing streak leaves the account clear of the cap. The wall most attempts actually hit, and the first thing the method protects.
2. Satisfying the consistency rule
Gains arriving evenly across days, so no single session is too large a share of the total — the rule that disqualifies a pass which came from one heroic day.
3. Conviction grades you can size by
An A-to-D label on every call tied to that model's own return spread, so position size follows measured conviction rather than a feeling.
4. Fixed risk per call
A written, unchanging fraction of the account risked on each trade — the arithmetic that makes the worst case survivable by construction.
5. A rule-locked plan
Entries, exits and sizing decided in advance and not revised mid-session, so discipline does not depend on mood after a loss.
The same five tests, against the ways people trade
Run identically, the tests sort traders into approaches. The matrix below is the scorecard applied to the styles an evaluation candidate actually brings to the desk — the revenge trader, the all-in punter, the copy-room follower, the gut-feel discretionary trader — against a graded, drawdown-aware plan. The point is not that the plan earns louder applause; it is that its line is the only one that comes out solid green all the way across.
Read down a column rather than across a row: the test almost nothing clears under pressure is respects the cap, which is why it leads the list. An approach can post a great month and still fail it, because one bad session was always going to breach the drawdown — the pass was luck, not method.
Why sizing, not picking, decides the evaluation
The thing that fails most evaluation attempts is not bad entries; it is sizing. A trader takes one position too large, the market moves against it, and a single day eats a week of progress — or trips the daily loss limit outright. The profit target gets all the attention, but the drawdown cap is the wall people actually hit.
The fix is arithmetic, not nerve. Risk a fixed, small fraction of the account on each call — a percentage you choose so that a realistic losing streak still leaves you clear of the floor — and the worst case becomes survivable by construction. If the maximum drawdown is, say, 10% and you risk 1% per trade, it takes ten full losses in a row to end the account, and a graded plan stacks the odds against that by sizing up only on the highest-conviction calls. The target then arrives as a by-product of staying in the game, rather than something you have to chase with a heroic week.
The test to run on any plan before you risk a funded fee on it: at your chosen risk per trade, how many consecutive losses would breach the cap? If the answer is “fewer than a bad week can deliver”, the plan is too big — shrink the size, not the ambition.
What the conviction grade has to mean
The third test asks for a grade that is calculated, not chosen, because position size should follow measured conviction. On the desk we point to, the grade is set per model against that model's own returns, so it stays comparable across very different holding times:
| Model | Clock | Grade-A bar (per trade) |
|---|---|---|
| Day Trade | same-session, intraday window | ~0.70% avg / trade |
| Multi Hour | part of a session to a couple of sessions | ~4.50% avg / trade |
| Swing Trade | roughly one to four weeks | ~6.00% avg / trade |
| Investing | long-horizon, highest-conviction | long-horizon |
An A is the top band of a model's own measured return spread; D is the lowest band still published. The bar is set per clock, so an A on a same-session Day Trade call (around 0.70% a trade) and an A on a multi-week Swing call (around 6.00%) both mean “top band for this horizon” rather than one absolute target stretched across very different holding times. There is no E grade — it was retired from the live product so the four-step scale keeps its meaning. For an evaluation, the grade tells you which calls to size up on and which to skip, which is the whole of position control.
For an evaluation the grade is the sizing dial. A trader who cannot take every call needs to know which ones the model rates highest so they can put slightly more size on the A and B calls and skip the rest — that is how you reach a target without taking the oversized swing that breaches a cap.
Why the cap, not the target, decides the result
On a generous target you have room to be patient; on a tight drawdown you have no room to be reckless. That asymmetry is why cap-respecting sizing sits at the top of this list, not the bottom. The combination that clears an evaluation is a fixed, small risk per trade and a measured grade to size by — the discipline embodied by the #1-ranked provider, whose calls are graded A to D and timestamped while the trade is still open and its outcome unknown. How that grade and those levels work is set out on the grades wall and the drawdown playbook.