Execution Review Framework
A review structure for measuring slippage, context quality, and process discipline after live execution.
Research question
How much of strategy degradation comes from the thesis itself, and how much comes from the way the trade was executed? That distinction matters because the corrective action is very different. A weak thesis needs redesign. A strong thesis handled poorly needs process repair.
Review categories
Context quality
Did the trade occur in the environment the playbook expected? If not, the result says less about the playbook and more about the decision filter that allowed the trade through.
Location quality
Was entry location structurally sound, or was the trade only directionally correct after poor timing? Directional correctness can hide weak execution if location is ignored.
Process discipline
Was sizing consistent? Were invalidation and exit logic respected? Did the trade follow the documented workflow or drift into improvisation under pressure?
Friction
What part of the result was explained by operational friction such as slippage, alert delay, dashboard visibility, or execution latency? This is where software and workflow changes often create more improvement than thesis changes.
Why this belongs in the public research library
Execution review is one of the least glamorous topics in trading content, which is exactly why it matters. A research company that manages internal capital should not present only idea generation. It should also show how ideas are audited after real decisions have been made.