Use this paper-trading checklist before a simulated entry so thesis, invalidation, size, timing, context, and agent rule fit are explicit before the outcome is known.
The point of a trade entry checklist is not to approve a trade. The point is to create a timestamped standard for review. If the thesis, invalidation, risk, and agent rule fit are not written before the simulated entry, the post-trade review has to rely on memory and outcome bias.
| Checklist item | Question | Pass condition |
|---|---|---|
| Thesis | What setup, rule, or catalyst is this entry testing? | A reviewer can understand the idea without seeing the outcome. |
| Invalidation | What condition proves the paper trade wrong? | Price, time, or context limit is written before entry. |
| Paper size | Does size fit the risk budget and stop distance? | Position size is calculated and consistent with limits. |
| Risk-reward | Is the target, stop, and expected payoff explicit? | The ratio is recorded as process evidence, not a guarantee. |
| Timing | Why now, and what would make waiting better? | The entry is tied to a rule, not a reaction to noise. |
| Agent rule fit | Does this match the agent persona, watchlist, and cadence? | The entry belongs to the system being tested. |
Thesis: ETH is testing a breakout level after three higher lows, and the paper agent is practicing trend-continuation entries only.
Invalidation: Setup is wrong if price closes back below the prior range or if BTC loses the same support zone.
Review question: Did the entry follow the trend-continuation rule, or did it chase momentum after the alert?
Continue with the post-trade review workflow and the trading feedback loop. The checklist becomes the standard that the exit review compares against.
A paper entry should have enough context that another reviewer can understand the setup without asking what you meant. The note should name the market, direction, setup type, invalidation, size, timing, and the agent rule being tested.
If any of those fields are missing, the trade can still be logged, but it should be tagged as incomplete process evidence during the post-trade review.
The checklist should produce a clear status before the simulated entry is accepted into the clean sample. A pass means the thesis, invalidation, size, timing, and agent rule fit are written before the outcome is known. A partial pass means the entry can still be tracked, but it should be labeled as incomplete evidence. A fail means the entry is mostly impulse, alert reaction, or hindsight.
This rubric keeps the journal honest. The goal is not to block every weak idea; the goal is to avoid mixing clean paper evidence with entries that cannot teach much during review.
When the same checklist item fails repeatedly, treat that as a workflow issue. The agent prompt, review template, or market frame may need to be simplified before more samples are collected.
Incomplete entries can still be valuable, but they should answer a different question: why did the process allow the missing field?
A checklist creates a written baseline before the outcome is known. That makes the later review more useful because it can compare what happened against what was planned.
No. It can improve review discipline, but it does not make a live trade safe or profitable. Trading Boy checklists are for simulated paper-trading workflows.
A failed checklist should usually pause the simulated entry or tag it as incomplete process evidence. The missing field should be reviewed before the setup is reused.
This checklist helps structure simulated trade review. It is not a recommendation to enter, exit, size, or hold any live position.