Intervention is rarely read well
Closing early or moving protection may feel prudent and still worsen the outcome.
Not every human intervention is bad. The problem begins when it changes the trade without a clear reading of its cost. This page addresses that layer with more verifiable language.
Many traders feel they “sabotaged themselves,” but cannot defend that conclusion. What matters is whether visible changes occurred and how much of the outcome may have been altered by them.
Closing early or moving protection may feel prudent and still worsen the outcome.
Sometimes it changes little; sometimes it completely alters the trade architecture.
The value lies in discussing observable facts before inferring intention.
The goal is not to condemn every manual decision, but to review its possible impact more seriously.
Management or exit events that alter the life of the trade.
A basis to compare the observed result with what the trade might have become.
How certain decisions change performance or accumulated damage.
Not everything will be confirmable, and that honesty protects the diagnosis.
No. Some cases are verifiable, some partial, and some do not have enough evidence.
No. Some decisions may protect; others may sabotage. The point is evidence.
It is a way to compare the observed outcome with an alternate path when the data supports it.
It can help a lot when the captured events let you distinguish both layers.
Install once, record over time, analyze with more clarity.