What I was looking for was supposed to be a new answer, but it was a face I had seen before

"If it appears multiple times"—does that mean it is such strong evidence? For a moment I thought so, then I stopped.

About this series (Verification Journey, Episode 4 of 6)

• Episode 1: The signal of the start of Episode 4 (published)
• Episode 2: Does increasing the time axis make it easier to pass? (published)
• Episode 3 (this article): The sense of unease that the same answer appeared again ← now here
• Episode 4: The wall did not disappear even when the time axis was changed
• Episode 5: Found again in the interim time axis

We were supposed to be looking for a new time axis

As I mentioned previously, in the interim time axis (H1) as well, several candidates passed robustness tests with costs incorporated. Since we tested a new time axis, we naturally thought of course a new answer would be found, and at first we thought so too.

However, while verifying the conditions of the found candidates one by one, I encountered a certain sense of inconsistency.

【Image: Insert 28_diverging_paths_converge.png here (owner will paste manually)】

"This is the same condition as before"

Some of the found candidates, when you look closely at the contents of the conditions,were exactly the same as conditions I had already described in some article beforedespite the time axis and currency pair being different, the combinations of indicators and the values of the parameters matched astonishingly.

To be honest, when I first noticed this, we briefly thought, "If it appears this many times, it must be a very strong condition."

However, we decided to pause and rethink.

"Appearing many times does not necessarily mean strong evidence"

After rethinking, the conclusion we arrived at is this:The exploration mechanism we use mechanically tests combinations of indicators based on the same sequence of random numbers (seed).Given that we use the same mechanism, it is not surprising that changing the time axis or currency pair still leads to similar or identical conditions.

In other words, the fact that something appears many times does not by itself mean “strong evidence,” but more likely that it was a condition that was easier to reach due to the exploration mechanism. Confusing this difference can lead to overestimating things compared to reality.

【Image: Insert 28_repetition_misconception.png here (owner will paste manually)】

Don't jump to conclusions; pause for a moment

This realization became one of the most important lessons of the series for us.Rather than immediately concluding "strong" or "special" just because something passed verification, always question whether there is any bias in the exploration mechanism behind why it appears so many times.This is what we reconfirmed this time.

Specifically which conditions duplicated and which currency pairs are involved cannot be disclosed at this stage. However, I wanted to convey the attitude of "not jumping to conclusions" in this article first.

【Image: Insert 28_pause_and_reconsider.png here (owner will paste manually)】

Disclaimer

• The content presented in this article is not intended to recommend any specific buying or selling or provide investment advice. It is for information sharing only.
• Back-tested results based on past data do not guarantee future results. Markets are always changing.
• Whether you actually buy or sell should be decided by you and you alone.

Thank you for reading this far. If you’re curious, please also check out the product page of Indicator Research Institute.