A complete seven-trade execution leak audit
See exactly how seven completed trades become one evidence-backed review question without turning a small sample into a profit claim.
Quick answer
- 01This is a fictional worked example, not a customer result or live performance record.
- 02Seven consecutive completed trades were reviewed instead of selecting only memorable losses.
- 03Plans, screenshots, order timestamps, and notes were compared with the actual action.
- 04Premature exit was supported in three of seven trades and appeared more often than any other category.
- 05The finding is a review hypothesis, not proof that holding longer would have made more money.
- 06The next rule improves exit evidence across another seven trades before anything else changes.
The fictional case
Alex is a fictional discretionary index-futures trader created to demonstrate the audit. The instruments, notes, and figures below are illustrative. They are not a testimonial, broker statement, or representation of a typical result.
Alex saved the seven most recent completed trades, the plan written before entry, entry and exit screenshots, order timestamps, and brief notes recorded during or immediately after each decision. The review asks only what the available evidence supports.
Fictional demonstration. No real trader, account, or performance data.
The seven-trade evidence table
Outcome is included for context but does not determine the classification. A clean loss stays clean, and a profitable trade can still contain a process break.
| Trade | Evidence-backed flag | Recorded plan | Observed action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · NQ pullback · +0.7R | Premature exit | Exit only at 2R target, original stop, or written invalidation. | Closed while the setup remained valid; note said, ‘didn't want green to turn red.’ |
| 2 · ES reversal · -1.0R | Rushed entry | Enter after the five-minute confirmation closes. | Fill timestamp was 22 seconds before confirmation; original stop was respected. |
| 3 · NQ breakout · -1.0R | No break shown | Enter on confirmation and accept the original stop. | Entry and stop matched the saved plan. |
| 4 · ES pullback · +0.5R | Premature exit | Exit at target, stop, time rule, or structure invalidation. | Closed early with no condition triggered; note said the trade ‘felt slow.’ |
| 5 · NQ continuation · +2.0R | No break shown | Take the planned 2R target if structure remains valid. | Entry, risk, management, and target matched the plan. |
| 6 · ES continuation · -1.5R | Risk drift + revenge trade | Maximum one contract after a loss; take only the named setup. | Two contracts were used immediately after Trade 5; note said, ‘get the last loss back.’ |
| 7 · NQ pullback · +0.8R | Premature exit | Hold until the written target, stop, time rule, or invalidation. | Closed before any condition fired; note said, ‘lock something in after that hit.’ |
Swipe table sideways to inspect every column →
How the categories scored
Premature exit appeared in three of seven trades, more often than any other supported category. That makes it the clearest candidate for the next review window.
The denominator stays visible. Revenge trading was scorable in only five trades because motive cannot be inferred from timing or a chart alone. Zero flags means no break was shown in the available evidence; it does not mean perfect execution.
| Category | Supported breaks | Scorable trades | What the count means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premature exit | 3 | 7 | The most frequently observed break in this sample. |
| Rushed entry | 1 | 7 | One supported instance; not yet a repeated pattern. |
| Risk drift | 1 | 7 | One supported position-size deviation. |
| Revenge trade | 1 | 5 | One supported motive; two trades lacked enough evidence to judge motive. |
| Off-plan setup | 0 | 7 | All seven had a named setup; this does not validate the setups. |
| Stop violation | 0 | 7 | No widening or removal was shown in the available records. |
Swipe table sideways to inspect every column →
The actual finding
Finding: three of seven completed trades were closed before the trader's recorded target, stop, time rule, or invalidation had fired, and the contemporaneous note supported an off-process reason.
This wording is deliberately narrower than ‘Alex always cuts winners’ or ‘premature exits cost Alex money.’ The audit observes what repeated. It does not establish a permanent habit, calculate a counterfactual result, or recommend holding a particular position.
Review hypothesis: premature exit · observed in 3 of 7 completed trades.
The next seven-trade rule
Before every entry, Alex records the allowed exit conditions: target, original stop, written invalidation, time rule, or discretionary exit. At the moment of exit, Alex records which condition fired. If none fired, the exit stays labelled discretionary rather than being rewritten after the outcome.
After seven more completed trades, the review measures whether an exit reason was recorded, whether it matched the saved plan, and whether an unsupported discretionary exit occurred again. Position size, entry criteria, and targets are not changed as part of this documentation test.
This rule creates better evidence. It is not an instruction to remain in a trade, change a target, or accept additional risk.
What this example cannot prove
A small audit earns the right to ask one better question. It does not earn the right to predict returns.
- That the underlying trading strategy has an edge.
- That holding the three flagged trades would have improved realised results.
- That premature exits are Alex's most financially important problem.
- That the same pattern will appear in the next seven trades.
- That the recorded notes capture every reason behind a decision.
- That a product-generated label should override the trader's source evidence.
How to reproduce the method
The free Audit provides the worksheet. Nothing needs to be uploaded, and the browser version does not ask for broker credentials or live positions.
- Choose seven consecutive completed trades.
- Recover the plan and evidence that existed at decision time.
- Separate the recorded plan from the observed action.
- Flag only supported breaks and preserve unknowns.
- Count categories using the scorable denominator.
- Choose one repeated, controllable behaviour for the next review window.
- Measure adherence separately from P&L.
Try it on your evidence
Run the same audit on your seven trades
Mark only the process breaks your own plan, screenshots, order record, or notes support. The worksheet counts the repeated category and gives you one review rule.
No account. No upload. Your worksheet stays in this browser.
Questions
Frequently asked
Is Alex a real customer?
No. Alex and every trade in this page are fictional. The example demonstrates the method without presenting invented data as customer proof.
Why include P&L at all?
It shows why execution and outcome must be reviewed separately. A winning trade can contain a supported break, while a clean trade can lose.
Does three of seven establish a habit?
No. It establishes a repeated observation inside this small sample and a candidate worth measuring across another defined window.
Why not calculate what the early exits cost?
That would require a defined alternative exit rule, reliable price-path data, transaction costs, and consistent counterfactual assumptions. Entry and exit screenshots alone are not enough.
Will my data be uploaded?
The free worksheet runs in the browser and does not require an account or upload. Do not share broker credentials, account identifiers, live positions, or unnecessary balances.