Review a trade fairly.
Reconstruct what happened before judging why it happened. A fair review needs the record, the context and the plan.
Begin with the execution record
Confirm instrument, side, quantity, prices, times and costs. Partial fills and scale changes can make one trade more complicated than two timestamps. Check whether the source is an authority record, broker export or manually entered observation. Different sources have different completeness and reconciliation needs.
Keep open exposure separate from a closed-trade result. Mark estimated or missing fees clearly. If records use different currencies, do not combine them without an explicit conversion method and time. A neat chart cannot correct an incomplete ledger.
Use units you can check
Take a deliberately small illustrative example: one long NQ contract enters at 21,510.00 and exits at 21,516.00. At a 0.25 price tick and $5 per tick, the six-point move is 24 ticks and $120 gross. With $4 in declared total costs, the net result is $116.
If the plan recorded an initial 10-tick risk, the planned monetary risk is $50. Net result divided by that initial risk is 2.32R. This does not mean the trade had that reward-to-risk ratio at entry, nor that its initial stop guaranteed a $50 maximum loss. It is a review measure under the stated assumptions.
Separate excursion from outcome
Maximum adverse and favorable excursion describe movements observed during the trade under a defined source and sampling rule. They need a time window, price convention and units. A close-only bar sample can miss the extremes between observations. Do not make fine-grained claims from coarse data.
Suppose the fixture’s lowest mark while the long trade was open was 21,508.50 and its highest was 21,518.00. Relative to the entry, that is −6 ticks and +32 ticks, or −$30 and +$160 before costs. Those values explain the sample path; they do not establish the optimal future exit.
Recover the decision context
Write what was visible at entry, which rule or observation mattered, and what would have invalidated the setup. Attach the source and chart settings where possible. Separate a note made at the time from an interpretation added later.
Then compare the action with the plan. Was quantity consistent? Was protection where you expected? Did you follow a known rule or improvise? A losing trade can follow a sound process, and a profitable trade can violate it. Keep decision quality and outcome as separate review questions.
Look for patterns without hiding the sample
Group trades by a useful condition, such as setup, session or documented mistake. Review the sample size, costs, drawdown and concentration alongside any average. A few trades may dominate the result. Searching many groups until one looks strong is itself a selection process that needs scrutiny.
A journal helps retain the record, but tags and memories are not independent proof. Keep exclusions visible and avoid silently deleting inconvenient observations. Compare the same definition over time rather than changing the rule to fit the latest result.
Share a fair record
A review card should identify its source, period and whether values are simulated. Consider what the recipient actually needs. Hide account identities and amounts when appropriate, and do not let privacy masking turn a sample record into an implied customer testimonial.
Alpha’s screenshots and website demonstrations are product material on simulated data, not customer returns. The goal of the connected review workflow is to make questions easier to inspect. It cannot establish that a strategy will make money or eliminate future risk.