Use this pre-trade review workflow to make the thesis, invalidation, paper position size, risk-reward, timing, and agent rule fit explicit before a simulated trade is logged.
The pre-trade review creates the standard that the post-trade review will judge. If you cannot explain the thesis, invalidation, and risk before the simulated entry, the trade is hard to learn from later. Trading Boy keeps that review connected to the agent, journal, risk tools, and paper-trading limitations.
| Step | Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Name the setup | What exact rule, pattern, or catalyst is this paper trade practicing? | Prevents vague entries that cannot be reviewed later. |
| 2. Define invalidation | What price, condition, or time limit proves the thesis wrong? | Creates a reviewable boundary before outcome bias appears. |
| 3. Check paper size | Does the simulated size fit max drawdown and frequency limits? | Keeps paper results comparable across decisions. |
| 4. Compare rules | Does this match the agent persona, watchlist, market frame, and cadence rules? | Separates planned practice from impulse trades. |
| 5. Write the note | What should the post-trade review evaluate after exit? | Turns the trade into process evidence. |
Setup: BTC is consolidating above a prior breakout level, and the paper agent is allowed to test continuation entries only.
Invalidation: Thesis is wrong if price closes below the breakout level or if the agent records two failed attempts in the same regime.
Review question: Did the agent wait for the setup, or did it enter because a short-term alert looked strong?
A strong pre-trade note is short but specific. It should identify the setup, the condition that would prove it wrong, the planned paper size, the reason the timing matters now, and the one question the post-trade review should answer.
If the note can be reused for almost any trade, it is too vague. The goal is to make the trade reviewable, not to produce generic confidence.
A simulated trade is review-ready only when the note explains what is being tested and what would prove it wrong. The note should also connect the paper size to the risk rule, explain why the timing matters now, and name the agent rule being practiced. If those pieces are missing, the trade may still be logged, but it should not be treated as clean evidence.
This standard prevents the pre-trade workflow from becoming a formality. The review should make it harder to rationalize vague ideas after the result is known.
Acceptance criteria also help compare similar setups. If two paper entries use different invalidation logic, different sizing logic, and different review questions, they probably should not be grouped together during the feedback loop.
When a setup fails the criteria, write the missing piece explicitly. That turns the failure into useful process data and makes the next checklist easier to improve.
The handoff should be clear enough that another reviewer can judge process quality without asking the trader what they meant later.
A clean handoff is also useful for solo review because it forces the future version of the trader to rely on written evidence instead of memory.
A pre-trade review is a written check of thesis, invalidation, paper position size, timing, and rule fit before a simulated trade is recorded.
Writing the review first creates a baseline that can be compared with the outcome later, reducing hindsight bias in paper-trading review.
Treat the entry as incomplete process evidence or skip it. Missing thesis, invalidation, sizing, or rule-fit context makes the later review much weaker.
This workflow is for simulated trade review. It does not recommend a live entry, live exit, or allocation size.