Trade Performance Coach Review Framework

Purpose

This framework turns recorded trade evidence into process-improvement feedback. It evaluates the quality of the trader's decision process, not whether the trade made money.

A clean-process loss can be acceptable. A profitable rule violation can still be a serious process problem.

Five-Axis Review Model

Axis	Question	Typical Evidence	Output
Thesis Quality	Was the original idea clear, falsifiable, and aligned with the setup?	trade thesis, invalidation, catalyst, setup notes	root-cause finding
Process Adherence	Did actual behavior follow the plan and workflow?	entry timing, setup confirmation, thesis record, stop plan	process findings
Risk Discipline	Did actual risk follow predefined limits?	planned R, actual R, portfolio heat, weekly loss, correlations	risk manager notes
Execution Quality	Were entry, stop, adds/trims, and exits consistent with plan?	execution log, partial close, stop changes	execution assessment
Behavior Pattern	Did the journal suggest repeated behavior patterns?	journal text, timing, rule deviations	behavior tags + questions

Root-Cause Categories

Use one primary root cause and optional secondary causes:

thesis_quality
execution
risk_sizing
market_environment
rule_violation
randomness
unknown

Classification guidance:

If the plan was followed and the setup was valid, but the market simply moved against the trade, prefer randomness or market_environment.
If the trade was taken without the required setup confirmation, prefer execution or rule_violation.
If the actual risk exceeded the user-defined plan, prefer risk_sizing.
If the user's note shows the trade was taken to make back a prior loss, prefer rule_violation with a possible revenge_trade behavior tag.

Verdicts

Verdict	Use When
`OK`	The record is complete enough, no material process/risk issue appears, and no behavior pattern is detected.
`WARN`	Minor issue, incomplete evidence, or soft process concern.
`REVIEW_REQUIRED`	Meaningful process/risk/execution issue, but not a hard rule violation.
`RULE_VIOLATION`	Explicit rule breach: risk limit, stop discipline, regime gate, or unplanned add/trim.
`COOL_DOWN`	Repeated violations, revenge pattern, drawdown escalation, or multiple critical findings.

Scoring

Scores are advisory, not scientific. They help the user compare reviews over time.

Start at 100 and subtract:

info finding: 0-5
warning finding: 10-20
critical finding: 25-40
missing critical record: 10-20

Recommended score fields:

process_score: 0-100
risk_score: 0-100
execution_score: 0-100
review_quality_score: 0-100

review_quality_score reflects evidence completeness. Do not over-interpret behavior tags when review quality is low.

Next-Session Operating Rules

Each review should produce concrete, temporary operating rules. Good rules are:

observable
time-boxed
tied to evidence
simple enough to follow before the next trade

Examples:

"For the next two trades, max planned risk is 0.5R."
"No entry without a pre-entry thesis record and invalidation point."
"If two rule violations occur in one week, switch to review-only mode."
"A missed entry may be added to the watchlist, but not chased above the planned trigger."

Evidence Standard

Every warning or tag should cite evidence:

field value (actual.risk_r = 1.8 vs max_risk_per_trade_r = 1.0)
journal phrase
missing required record
explicit flag (stop_moved = true)

Avoid unsupported claims. If evidence is unclear, say so.

/trade-performance-coach

referencesreview-framework.md