2026-09-05. The examples below are constructed software
fixtures, not measured EA returns.
A test result is a claim about a particular input and an expected
answer. Our software tests can check that the engine keeps two capital
bases apart, recognizes changing position sizes, and withholds an output
when the history is too thin. Those checks matter because a plausible
number can still answer the wrong question.
The denominator has its own test
One constructed survival example uses a run capital of 500 and
an evaluation deposit of 250. The test expects the engine to retain
both values. On that fixture, 40% of its modeled starting points
exhaust the smaller deposit. Evaluating the same constructed paths at
500 changes that share to 20%.
This checks whether the calculation follows the declared evaluation
capital. Neither percentage estimates the risk of an EA. The paths were
written to exercise the calculation, and their expected answers were
worked out in advance. Reproducing those answers does not establish how
often a similar path will occur in a market.
A check needs more than its agreeable case
Our position-size drift tests construct a history with a stable base
lot and larger progression trades. That example must return
consistent. Another example raises the base lot across years and
must return contradicted. A history with only one qualifying year
must return insufficient.
The last result has a separate consequence. An integration test sends
a small tester-report fixture through the audit with a declared fixed
base lot policy. The survival calculation must stay gated when the drift
check lacks enough evidence. Declaring a policy does not itself supply
the history needed to test it.
What remains outside the fixture
These tests establish behavior for the supplied examples. They do not
establish that every future export has a familiar layout, that a vendor
will keep the same trading logic, or that a simulated trade sequence will
repeat live. They also cannot demonstrate that a missing test would pass.
The useful question is which failure an example was designed to expose.
When reading an audit, keep the declared capital
basis and the reason for any withheld section beside the result. A
passing software check helps explain why the engine produced that result.
It does not enlarge the market evidence contained in the original run.
All 33 audit files in our catalog on 4 September 2026 carried the tester journal next to the report and pair every trade from it. In two of them the journal holds two test runs, and only the last one counts because MT5 starts its order numbers over with every test. Logan pairs 1,372 trades out of such a file at full coverage, and in 285 of them the journal names an entry that a first in first out rule would have missed.
Our market watch archives the vendor updates page of every product we follow, and the copy read on 2026-08-27 holds 376 version entries across 24 products. 185 of them mention a fix and 132 use the word added. Five put a number on an outcome, and not one of the five names the window, the symbol or the deposit it was measured on.