Why we deliberately do not exaggerate the "number of discoveries"

Introduction

In the previous article, we shared the idea of not judging the SQN indicator by the magnitude of numbers alone. This time, with a slightly different perspective, I would like to talk about our approach to information disclosure.

We do not necessarily convey the \"number of findings\" as is

In our explorations so far, we have tested dozens and hundreds of combinations. Most of these fail somewhere in robustness testing and never come into the spotlight.

When communicating these processes, you could emphasize only the sheer volume of candidates we tried. However, we have chosen a different way to present it.

What’s the problem with exaggerating the numbers

The number of attempts themselves can demonstrate the care taken in validation, but they do not guarantee the magnitude of the results. Rather, if we foreground the fact that we “tried a lot,” it can give the impression that “since we tried many things, we must have found a good one.”

What we truly want to convey is not the sheer number of attempts, but the fact that only a small portion actually passed five robustness tests. We believe that records showing how many attempts failed reflect the honesty that this institute highly values.

What we value in information disclosure

We strive to communicate honestly not only when results are good, but also about how things went when they didn’t. This has been our stance since we started this institute. Rather than decorating with numbers, we believe in conveying what was verified, what collapsed, and what remained intact to the end. There is meaning in the process itself.

What I’ve felt so far

It’s easy to lay out flashy numbers, but whether that information is truly helpful to readers is another matter. In the next article, we will share how we actually approach things after passing validation.

Disclaimer

・The content shared in this article is not a recommendation to buy or sell specific assets, nor investment advice. It is information sharing.

・Validation results based on past data do not guarantee the same results in the future. Market conditions constantly change.

・Whether you actually execute trades should be decided solely at your own responsibility.

・The indicators and tools introduced in the future are one of the factors for market analysis, and using them does not guarantee profits.

If you’re curious, please also check out the Indicator Institute’s product page.