Five paper-trading scenarios test whether a journal preserves decision quality when the easy arithmetic stops being enough. Choose the best review action, then compare your reasoning with the explanation.
1
The gap
A paper plan assumes an exit at 50.00. The next simulated available fill after a gap is 47.80. The journal template calculates loss only to 50.00.
Best review action: Preserve the plan and the simulated execution as separate facts. An invalidation level is not a guaranteed fill. Rewriting execution to match the plan hides gap risk; deleting the row creates survivorship bias.
2
The wrong model
A simple shares formula is copied into an options practice journal. It ignores contract multiplier, premium-at-risk, and non-linear price sensitivity.
Best review action: A correct calculation with an invalid model is still misleading. Pause rather than inventing a correction factor. Document the mechanics the model must represent before estimating hypothetical size.
3
The invisible friction
A hypothetical size fits the selected loss budget before spread, commission, slippage, and whole-unit rounding. With those assumptions included, it exceeds the budget.
Best review action: Paper practice is where assumptions should become visible. Add friction and rounding before judging budget fit. Changing the budget after seeing the answer defeats the pre-commitment.
4
The profitable rule break
A simulated trade ends profitably, but entry occurred before the written condition and the invalidation was moved farther away.
Best review action: Outcome and process answer different questions. Keep the profitable result, but score observable deviations as deviations. Otherwise luck can train the journal to reward rule breaking.
5
The missing evidence
A practice setup depends on a data release, but the release time and source cannot be verified before the planned decision.
Best review action: “Unknown” is a valid journal result. Stopping protects the boundary between evidence available at decision time and information added later.
Review complete
Use the pattern in any paper journal
Freeze the before-state: thesis, invalidation, model, data sources, budget, and skip conditions.
Record the after-state separately: assumed fills, friction, outcome, and deviations.
Audit without hindsight: ask what was knowable at decision time.
Count repeated leaks: improve one repeated process failure instead of explaining away one result.
A score here is not a competence certificate. The useful output is the explanation you would add to a journal.
Continue the review, if useful
The official Vision Academy community is an optional place to discuss paper-trading process and journal design. Bring your reasoning—not account credentials, private financial information, or an expectation of returns.