ENTRIONSYSTEMS

The gap

Automated systems trade unattended.
Nothing judges whether they are sound.

Since 6 July 2026 the Korean FX market has traded around the clock. Policy documents assume automated execution during the hours when no dealer is present.

No criterion exists for judging whether those systems are structurally sound. No tool. No qualification for the people who would make the judgment. The layer is empty.

Read the standard →

The question

Performing well and being sound are not the same thing.

Almost every existing tool measures performance — return, maximum drawdown, Sharpe ratio, win rate. None of them answers whether the system holds a stop rule at all, whether position size is computed from capital, or whether the system reduces exposure as losses accumulate. Performance depends on the sample. Structure does not. We judge the latter.

Does a stop rule exist?

Or has the system simply not yet met a large loss? The loss distribution answers this without the code.

Is size tied to capital?

Or is it a constant hard-coded into the entry logic? A regression on the lot sequence answers this.

Does it stop when losing?

Trade frequency and volume inside a drawdown interval, compared against outside it.

Principles

Five constraints that define the tool.

  1. P-01We do not judge profitability.What is judged is structure, not result. Judging profitability creates an implicit promise about future performance, blurs the boundary with unregistered investment advice, and produces a sample-dependent judgment with no reproducibility.
  2. P-02We do not ask for source code.An EA's source code is the developer's entire asset. A tool that demands it is not adopted. Structural defects leave traces in the output — the trade record and the equity curve — so judgment is possible without code.
  3. P-03Local execution. Data never leaves the device.Input data is not transmitted to a server. Judgment runs on the user's machine and only the result is displayed. This resolves the trust problem in P-02 structurally rather than by assurance.
  4. P-04Every judgment is published with its evidence and its threshold.A tool that presents a verdict while concealing its basis asks to be trusted in itself. That is the same structure this project exists to criticise. The reader must be able to re-examine the judgment.
  5. P-05Insufficient data is reported as such, never as a pass.Items lacking data are not filled by estimation. A pass and a judgment that could not be made are different results, and a tool that does not distinguish them manufactures safety that does not exist.

These are not softened for convenience during implementation. If one of them falls, what remains is indistinguishable from the tools already on the market.

Findings

We judge our own systems first.

We run our own capital through our own systems. The judgments we obtain on them are published here, including the defects. A verification body that only publishes clean results has published nothing.

The first set of findings is in preparation. It will be published as the calibration phase produces results.

Scope

What this standard does not judge.

  • Profitability or future performance. Neither judged nor predicted.
  • Direction, instrument, or entry timing. No opinion is offered.
  • The merit of entry logic. Reference figures only, never a verdict.
  • Suitability for managing third-party money. This standard is not used for that determination.

This list is not a limitation. It is the definition. Because these four are excluded, the judgment stays reproducible and responsibility stays clearly located.

ENTRION Co., Ltd.

We do not sell signals.

We do not quote returns.

We do not forecast markets.

We document how a trading system actually behaves, in a form that can be verified.

The judgment belongs to the reader.