If you widen the stop-loss range, will losses decrease? 3,500 JPY comparison · H1 draft and next week's verification conditions

18:35 Post-conclusion: Expanding stop-loss and the H1 plan are in the verification stage and are not adopted in production

If we widen the stop-loss from 2,500 JPY to 3,500 JPY, would this week's losses have been reduced? The new material with a 18:35 JST deadline on October 24 showed read-only comparison results, but the final P/L difference for the overall strategy remains undecided. The H1-based configuration is also in the investigation stage, no trading programs have been created or run. There are no changes from the current M5 v1.42 and EA v1.26 derived from H1, and the old M5 range gate that was not adopted has not revived. We separate hypothetical conditions from actual trading results.

Basis: Different outcomes occur even with the same 9 cases when the base price conditions differ

In a comparison from 2,500 JPY to 3,500 JPY targeting 9 initial SL losses, if the base price trigger is kept at 1,250 JPY, 2 cases recover to the base price level, 6 reach the 3,500 JPY side, and 1 case is pending at data tail. On the other hand, if the risk amount itself is changed to 3,500 JPY and the base price is set to 0.5R = 1,750 JPY, there is 1 avoidance candidate, 7 reach 3,500 JPY, and 1 pending. Both totals are 9 cases, but the base price conditions are different, so these are not the same experiment.

Calling something an avoidance candidate does not mean there is a real record of losses avoided. Because the order sequence, interference with subsequent orders, full trailing, partial closes, and slippage are part of the overall strategy performance, the results are not confirmed. You cannot fill a pending 1 case to zero profit/loss to claim safety simply because 2 cases returned to the base price.

Limitations: H1 and H4判定例 do not indicate win rate

In the H1-based configuration, there are records for a directions-consistent plan of a confirmed 20 EMA and 30 SMA on H4, and for an H1 plan to trail SL only on the profit side near the 20 EMA. On Oct 21, the H1 BUY候補 was rejected in the opposite direction of H4; on Oct 22, the H1 SELL候補 aligned with H4. These are判定例 of conditions, not results showing win rate in a population used for performance comparison or verification. The initial SL on H1, EMA margin, starting from the base price, interplay with normal scopes, box durations, and thresholds remain undecided.

Operational quality issues remain. Regarding account score stale after Oct 20, runtime audit ledger missing/locked, and structure shadow's closed_24h_valid=false, permanent causes and restorations have not been confirmed. It is necessary to verify the latest timestamp data and the continued validity, rather than assuming root cause from display names alone. Increasing numbers of audits or the appearance of candidates does not prove ledger restoration.

Next verifications: Five entry conditions

1. Compute v1.42’s first natural-determined cross from scope→signal→ACK→ticket→result→Drive media in one uninterrupted flow.
2. Do not productionally change the 3,500 JPY plan; re-verify the arrival order with tick precision or enough real samples.
3. H1 plan uses a future-free confirmatory bar, with H4 direction, SL margin, BE conditions fixed in advance for shadow evaluation.
4. Check account score and audit ledger data freshness and keep operation quality unresolved until continued validity of closed_24h_true is confirmed.
5. Resolve weekly Drive master media absence. Do not settle for local-only images/videos; cross-check videos/entry/exit images/trade_meta per ticket.

Source: Google Drive’s DAILY_BRIEF.md editions dated Oct 19–23, 2026, 18:35 JST deadline, weekly targets from 10/18 00:00 to 10/24 18:35. This整理 lists the conditions for AI research development, self-made indicators, and EA research verification. The article editing has not changed production risk amounts, trading settings, VPS, AutoTrading, or distribution settings. Weekday 24-hour live trading is noted as activity, but the recorded source verifications for this week’s production have not been fully prepared, and other materials will not be embedded. The morning 08:08 version below reflects the auditing,候補, and mid-term tally history at that time, and “latest” or “current” are limited to the morning materials.

Morning 08:08版の確認履歴: Audit rows, score freshness, and trade linkage

Conclusion: More lines does not mean the trading verification is complete

Audit logs grow daily and heartbeats arrive. Does that mean the EA verification progressed smoothly? The answer is that we must separate the growth of records, the ability to analyze them, and the linkage to actual trading. In the materials from Oct 19–23, many things were WAITING, with older scores remaining, while settlements across the account are recorded. We cannot replace waiting audits with order suspensions or no trades in the EA.

This weekly review整理 the progress of financial AI and AI agent R&D, self-made indicators and EA verification. The week covers Oct 19–23, with the latest補足 carried on Oct 24 06:10 JST. Rather than inflating audit counts as evidence of progress, we clarify which stages can be confirmed and which remain unconfirmed. It is premature to claim “fixed” or “normal” without confirming the causes and restorations.

Basis: On Tuesday only READY and WAITING were mixed

In DAILY_BRIEF with Oct 19 18:35:03 JST deadline, all 694 audit rows were WAITING. By Oct 20 18:33:41 JST, of 873 audits, 2 were READY and 871 WAITING. READY reasons were new_ex_events_only_no_backfill; WAITING reasons were ex_indicator_ledger_missing_or_locked. So it is incorrect to summarize Tuesday as “873 lines all WAITING.” Even small differences should be kept in weekly reports that track state changes.

Oct 21 18:30:11 JST deadline has all 1,047 lines WAITING; Oct 22 18:34:24 JST deadline has all 1,051 lines WAITING; Oct 23 18:34:43 JST deadline has all 1,054 lines WAITING. These are the counts from each deadline and may include overlapping accumulations. Do not add five days to represent weekly orders or unique trades. Interpret the differences only after checking the target IDs and times for each line.

Even if a reason name includes missing_or_locked, this display alone cannot confirm whether the file is missing, locked, reference location, permissions, author, or analysis format. Do not convert display names into definitive diagnoses in Japanese. Two READY lines are not proof of two successful orders. Audit readiness, AI judgment, order submission, and matches are separate stages.

Illustration: The three boxes of audit,候補, and account results

In the diagram, audits, score freshness, and linkage to trades are placed in separate boxes. This avoids a simplistic idea that audits moving means trades are healthy or that候補 appearing means orders were filled. The boxes are connected by signalID/ticket and timestamps belonging to the same event. Numbers alone arranged side by side do not replace a mapping table. When reporting audit improvements, specify exactly what changed in which box.

Limitation One: Zero on an old score is not today’s zero

What caused issues after Tuesday was that the score update time remained at Oct 20 02:59:08 JST. Even with current heartbeats, that does not prove a newly updated score in another file. On Wednesday there was one settlement for the entire account, another settlement on Thursday, and seven settlements in progress recorded on Friday. Looking only at the old score and saying “no trades since then” would conflict with observations from the same week.

Here we distinguish acquisition time and generation time. Even if you can read today's file, it does not mean it was generated today. Future dashboards should include not only successful reads but also the last update time, the target period, and the accounts/EA under review. A zero value does not justify using zero as a current fact, and distinguishing zero from unknown helps avoid overstating performance and misdiagnosing障害.

Limitation Two: The number of signals is not the number of trades

Natural signals per day: Monday 80, Tuesday 74, Wednesday 84, Thursday 101, Friday 107 in the materials. However, these are records of displays候補, not counts of orders placed. Friday’s 107 with BUY 37 and SELL 70, and with warn 0/1/2 as 46/13/48, are classified along different axes and should not be summed to 214 observations.

Friday’s auxiliary observations of 211 include independent flags: closed24h valid 0, M1 valid 39, M5 valid 209. M1 and M5 are not mutually exclusive classifications, so you cannot add 39 and 209 and compare to the total or say that 248 of 211 were valid. It is possible that the required 24-hour condition is not met while some shorter-interval data are valid. The design should specify which conditions determine what.

Furthermore, the 06:10 JST handover on the 24th shows two SELL候補 observed in the previous day’s local log. Bar times 17:30:00 with price 3977.79 and 17:40:00 with 3994.81, but the bar time zone, signalID, and ticket mappings are unconfirmed. We will not derive profits or spreads from these two prices or pair them with two of Friday’s seven settlements. The warning 0 display does not indicate AI approval or execution.

Next to verify: Define restoration conditions by connectivity, not by case counts

What’s needed next is to verify audit inputs and reading conditions, identify waiting reasons, and re-confirm whether the same event connects候補 to orders and results. Inspect reference locations and permissions as investigations, separate from trading settings changes. Do not make待機 increases the completion condition for restoration. When re-reading, verify whether past data fills retroactively or only new events apply.

Weekday 24-hour live trading is a supplement to align displays with chronology. However, this week’s production materials do not have complete source-verified recordings per trade. Do not attach unrelated footage to create an impression of verification; explain only what can be confirmed from the available materials. At present, keep separate records for audit rows,候補 rows, and account tallies, and fill mapping tables where common IDs are found.

Readers should focus on whether generation times are newer, whether待機理由 is evidenced, and whether entry/exit points for individual trades are connected, rather than simply counting the number of audits or候補. Treating候補 counts or audit volume as indicators of AI accuracy or profitability is not the correct approach for interpretation. FX, GOLD, and automated trading carry loss risks, and growth in logs or verification does not guarantee future profits.

Weekly presentation: Show only what has changed in the confirmed range

The audit list will include daily deadlines and keep counts by status. For example, if two lines on Tuesday were READY, they will not be erased to fit a comforting narrative of a day with WAITING other times. However, those two lines will not be extended to imply continued restoration or successful orders. A change in status is different from the fact that the status persisted. Similarly, an increase in disruption reports is treated separately from confirming the health of all paths.

Source and research pages

Sources are the Google Drive versions of DAILY_BRIEF.md dated Oct 19–23, 2026 and LOCAL_CODEX_HANDOFF_20261024_0610.md. The per-deadline counts are as stated at the cutoff and are not a deduplicated ledger for the entire week. This article’s creation has not changed production EA, indicator, VPS, AutoTrading, or distribution settings. The current plan for AI-led decision-making from entry to exit is not implemented or deployed in the latest materials, and the increased audit logs do not prove completion of that plan.

Product specifications and availability being researched can be checked atGogoJungle sales page. At the most recent check, the product was marked as not for sale, so it is not advised to purchase. The figures in this article reflect past research and do not guarantee future profits or loss avoidance.