Research

Research that has to survive evidence.

Every idea stays a hypothesis until evidence clears the bar. Failed ideas remain visible because avoiding a bad conclusion is useful work too.

Ask Cruxia See what happened afterward

Published

Adopted

Promising

Not adopted

Verdict guide

Adopted — cleared the current research bar.

Promising — encouraging, but not adopted yet.

Inconclusive — not enough evidence to call it.

Not adopted — failed the current bar; the failure remains visible.

How we test · methodology and forward-test statusInspect

1 · Thesis

State exactly what we think might be true.

2 · Try to break it

Use counter-evidence, robustness checks, costs and out-of-sample tests where available.

3 · Promote or reject

NOT ADOPTED is a successful result when the evidence does not clear the bar.

Forward-test pulse

Prospective tests: 0 pending · 6 matured · 3 successes. These are research observations only until the evidence earns something more.

Research only

Current research

What we learned — including what failed.

2 public-safe reports

Moving-Average Crossover (intraday) · 2026-08-12

The Indicator Report — “Moving-Average Crossover (intraday)”

NOT ADOPTED

Bottom line

No — the evidence did not clear the adoption bar.

Sample

901,558 simulated trades · 6 instruments

Why it matters

Do not treat the tested rule as a supported standalone edge on this evidence.

Biggest limitation

this tests the MECHANICAL SKELETON of the published rule — discretionary context a human reader would add is not mechanizable and is NOT modelled

Ask Cruxia about this result

What did we test?

A fast moving average crossing above a slow one is a long entry and crossing below is a short entry, used as an INTRADAY signal on hourly bars. SCOPE, because the two get conflated: this is NOT the daily-chart 'golden cross', which is a different claim on a different timeframe and is not tested here.

Evidence summary

1,152 declared cells x 2 fill conventions, 901,558 simulated trades, 6 instruments, 2016-2025 on H1 bars. Breadth 10.6% / 17.5% positive net of costs (conservative/optimistic fills). Indistinguishable from random bar sequences.

Inspect evidence and methodology

Declared cells

See evidence summary

Simulated trades

See evidence summary

Instruments

See evidence summary

Best |t| / bar

Not published as a structured field

Limits travel with the verdict

• this tests the MECHANICAL SKELETON of the published rule — discretionary context a human reader would add is not mechanizable and is NOT modelled
• single intraday vendor (HistData ASCII M1 -> H1, UTC); no second vendor ran this grid
• both fill conventions are reported because they can disagree; the placebo shares the same conventions, which is why the EXCESS carries the verdict and the raw expectancy never does
• costs are measured spread medians over ALL hours, which is conservative for a rule traded in liquid sessions

Pre-registration spec hash 6e771286fbd13262 — the pre-registration embeds it and the runner refuses any other spec; approved by owner before any cell was computedcanonical indicator — no author to quote

Momentum Candle · 2026-08-07

The Indicator Report #1 — "Momentum Candle" (CORRECTED: his actual rules)

NOT ADOPTED

Bottom line

No — the evidence did not clear the adoption bar.

Sample

95,568,556 simulated trades · 6 instruments

Why it matters

Do not treat the tested rule as a supported standalone edge on this evidence.

Biggest limitation

this tests the MECHANICAL SKELETON of the stated rules — his discretionary context (supply/demand zones, 'left side empty', session choice) is not mechanizable and is NOT modelled, and a discretionary reader is not a rule

Ask Cruxia about this result

What did we test?

80-90%+ win rate on the Momentum Candle method. The stop-loss rule is not stated in the deep-dive video — he gives it in Episode 19: SL at the candle's 100% Fibonacci level, layered entries at 38.2/61.8, first target at the wick, final at the -27% extension. Round 2 tests THOSE rules.

Evidence summary

1,728 cells x 2 fill conventions, 95,568,556 simulated trades, 6 instruments, 10 years of 5-minute bars, HIS stated rules. Breadth 0.0% / 37.5% positive (conservative/optimistic fills). Single intraday vendor (HistData).

Inspect evidence and methodology

Declared cells

See evidence summary

Simulated trades

See evidence summary

Instruments

See evidence summary

Best |t| / bar

Not published as a structured field

Limits travel with the verdict

• this tests the MECHANICAL SKELETON of the stated rules — his discretionary context (supply/demand zones, 'left side empty', session choice) is not mechanizable and is NOT modelled, and a discretionary reader is not a rule
• single intraday vendor (HistData M1); no second vendor ran this grid
• fill conventions matter here and BOTH bounds are reported: the conservative conventions book ~47% win rate on a pure random walk where first-passage arithmetic says ~62%, which is why the placebo excess, not the raw expectancy, carries the verdict
• they publish this for free and warn about the risk themselves

Pre-registration db86fb76 frozen before any cell was computed (round 2); round 1 2520c159Rizki Aditama · Sekolah Trading · 1.19M subs