Use this checklist to slow down any live-capital discussion until the paper-trading evidence is clean, conservative, and honest about simulation limits. A checklist can surface gaps; it cannot approve real-money trading.
Trading Boy does not execute live trades, hold funds, connect custody, or provide financial advice. This checklist is for simulated evidence review only. Any live-capital decision happens outside Trading Boy and should account for risks that paper trading cannot validate.
Work through each row before changing a workflow from simulated review into any external live-capital conversation. A single failed row should usually produce more paper testing, not a workaround.
| Gate | Question | Pass evidence | Stop condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample quality | Is the sample complete enough to inspect? | Entries, exits, skips, misses, exclusions, and dates are recorded. | Only selected winners or recent trades are visible. |
| Rule stability | Did the setup, prompt, and risk rule stay stable? | Version labels show what was tested and when it changed. | The sample blends several rule versions. |
| Risk behavior | Did paper size, drawdown, and exposure stay inside plan? | Losses, pauses, and size limits are documented before the result. | Paper gains depend on breaking the risk rule. |
| Execution gap | Were simulated fills reviewed against possible live slippage? | The review names fill, fee, latency, and liquidity assumptions. | The paper result assumes perfect execution. |
| Outlier dependency | Does one winner or one market regime explain most of the result? | Raw and normalized views are both shown. | One unusual trade drives the conclusion. |
| Behavior review | Were FOMO, revenge, hesitation, and rule breaks tagged? | Behavior tags connect mistakes to the next paper test. | The journal ignores emotional or process drift. |
| Outside risk | Are real-world risks explicitly named? | The review includes fees, taxes, liquidity, custody, and capital stress. | The paper sample is presented as proof of live readiness. |
Paper sample: A trader reviews 68 simulated trades across eight weeks. The strategy is positive on paper, but two large winners explain most of the return.
Checklist result: Sample quality passes because entries, skips, and misses are recorded. Rule stability passes for the last six weeks. Risk behavior is mixed because three entries widened the stop after the setup moved. Execution gap fails because the review assumes fills at the paper mark without fee or slippage notes.
Decision: The checklist does not support a live-capital discussion. The next action is another paper sample with stricter stop-distance rules and a simulated slippage note on every entry. The trader also completes the paper trading execution slippage review before revisiting the topic.
Start with the paper trading results validation checklist. If that checklist finds missing records, mixed versions, or weak journal evidence, do not use this live-capital checklist yet. The decision layer depends on the evidence layer being clean.
Pair this page with paper-trading limitations, risk controls and review, and paper trading vs live trading. Those pages keep the boundary visible when a simulated sample looks exciting.
A completed checklist should produce one conservative output. The cleanest output is often "keep testing in paper mode." Other acceptable outputs are "tighten one rule," "reduce simulated risk," "split the benchmark by market regime," or "stop the workflow." Avoid broad labels like "approved" or "ready" because they overstate what paper evidence can prove.
If the review includes an AI paper-trading agent, also record prompt version, persona version, model notes, and whether the agent respected human review boundaries. Use AI trading agent without live execution to keep the agent framed as a simulated review assistant rather than a live trading bot.
Decision reviews often create disagreement because one person sees promising paper performance while another sees missing evidence. Resolve that by pointing to the checklist row, not by debating confidence. If sample quality fails, add records. If execution assumptions fail, run the execution slippage review. If confidence is emotional, use the confidence questions before changing the workflow.
The safest rule is to require the weakest row to define the next paper test. A strong paper return does not override missing skips, mixed rule versions, or unclear drawdown behavior. The next action should fix the evidence gap that prevents a serious review.
It is a conservative paper-first checklist for reviewing simulated evidence before any real-money decision is considered outside Trading Boy.
No. The checklist cannot approve live trading, predict returns, or replace professional advice. Trading Boy does not execute live trades, hold funds, or provide financial advice.
Stop the discussion when sample size is weak, rules changed mid-test, drawdown behavior is unclear, skipped trades are missing, or paper results depend on unrealistic fills.