A multidimensional record of return efficiency, drawdown control, trade behaviour, and portfolio resilience.
MSIIA performance analysis is presented as a structured body of evidence rather than a single headline figure. Each result is evaluated across risk, consistency, market exposure, drawdown behaviour, execution quality, and portfolio interaction.
Audit-basis metrics from the 2020.04.01 — 2026.01.01 review period, organised by evidence class rather than presented as an undifferentiated list. Each figure must be read against its classification and the disclosure below.
Section 02 · Audit Metric Register
Net Return · Total Period
+693.52%
EUR 10,000 → EUR 79,351.89
Cumulative return on initial capital across the 69-month audit-basis review period, compounded over 301 closed trades. A total-return figure is the beginning of the analysis, not its conclusion.
CAGR
43.35%
REVIEW PERIOD
69 MONTHS
BASIS
MODELLED
2.94
Profit Factor
Gross profit relative to gross loss across all closed trades.
CONTEXT · ABOVE 2.0 IS CONVENTIONALLY READ AS FAVOURABLE
1.61
Sharpe Ratio
Return per unit of volatility over the modelled period.
CONTEXT · ABOVE 1.5 IS CONVENTIONALLY READ AS STRONG
7.82×
Recovery Factor
Total net profit relative to the maximum balance drawdown.
CONTEXT · MEASURES REBUILD CAPACITY AFTER ADVERSE PERIODS
5.76%
Balance Drawdown · Absolute
Deepest decline of closed balance below initial capital.
CONTEXT · READ TOGETHER WITH RELATIVE DRAWDOWN
16.31%
Balance Drawdown · Relative
Deepest peak-to-trough decline of closed balance.
CONTEXT · THE STRUCTURAL RISK FIGURE FOR THIS RECORD
301 TRADES
Statistical Sample · 87.38% Win Rate
Closed positions in the audit record; the sample underlying every ratio on this page.
CONTEXT · TRADE CONSISTENCY REVIEWED IN SECTION 07
DISCLOSURE · METRICS ARE DERIVED FROM THE AUDIT-BASIS MODELLED / BACKTEST RECORD. HISTORICAL OR SIMULATED PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS. LIVE EXECUTION MAY DIFFER DUE TO SPREAD, SLIPPAGE, LIQUIDITY, BROKER CONSTRAINTS, AND IMPLEMENTATION VARIANCE.
Section 03 · Analytical Framework
No single metric is allowed to define system quality.
A return figure describes what happened; it does not describe how it happened, what it cost in risk, or whether it would survive a different market condition. The registry above is therefore read through five analytical pillars.
P·01
Return Generation
Whether the system produces capital growth at all, and at what compounding rate over a meaningful period.
P·02
Risk-Adjusted Efficiency
How much volatility, exposure, and drawdown risk was required to produce each unit of performance.
P·03
Drawdown Containment
The depth, duration, and recovery behaviour of losing periods — the condition under which capital actually leaves.
P·04
Execution Consistency
Whether results come from a repeatable trade distribution or from a small number of unrepresentative outcomes.
P·05
Portfolio Resilience
How the record behaves across a governed universe and changing regimes, rather than in one favourable pocket.
The balance trajectory below is an illustrative reconstruction from audit-basis summary values — initial capital, terminal balance, dated drawdown constraints — not a live feed and not a tick-level export. Equity-curve segmentation is not disclosed in this evidence set.
Section 04 · Balance Trajectory
Balance Curve · Modelled
EUR 10,000 → EUR 79,351.89 · 2020.04.01 — 2026.01.01
INITIAL CAPITAL
EUR 10,000
FINAL BALANCE
EUR 79,351.89
CAGR
43.35%
REVIEW PERIOD
69 MONTHS
The equity profile is evaluated not only by total appreciation, but by the depth, frequency, and recovery duration of adverse periods.
ILLUSTRATIVE RECONSTRUCTION FROM AUDIT-BASIS SUMMARY VALUES · NOT A LIVE PERFORMANCE FEED · PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
Drawdown is treated as a structural condition, not a secondary statistic. The record is examined for how deep adverse periods ran, how they related to open-position exposure, and how capital was rebuilt afterwards.
Section 05 · Adverse Periods
Underwater Profile
DEPTH BELOW RUNNING PEAKThe deepest closed-balance episode reached −16.31% from its peak before full recovery. The evidence indicates one dominant adverse cycle and a small number of shallower episodes; drawdown duration and frequency statistics are not itemised in this evidence set.
ILLUSTRATIVE RECONSTRUCTION · CLOSED-BALANCE BASIS · EQUITY (FLOATING) STRESS RAN DEEPER — SEE REGISTER
Drawdown Register
Balance vs. Relative Drawdown
Absolute balance drawdown measures how far the closed balance fell below the initial deposit — here 5.76%, confined to the opening months. Relative drawdown measures the deepest fall from any later peak — here 16.31% — and is the more demanding figure once capital has compounded. The two must always be read together, and both differ from floating equity stress, which reached 25.30% intraperiod.
Return quality is evaluated relative to volatility, drawdown, recovery, and the amount of risk required to produce each unit of performance. Each indicator below states what it measures — and what it does not.
Section 06 · Efficiency Review
Sharpe Ratio
1.61
Measures — excess return per unit of volatility over the modelled period.
Does not measure — tail-risk severity, drawdown duration, or execution feasibility in live markets.
Profit Factor
2.94
Measures — gross profit earned for each unit of gross loss across the 301-trade sample.
Does not measure — the sequence of losses, concentration of profit in few trades, or future edge persistence.
Recovery Factor
7.82×
Measures — total net profit relative to the maximum balance drawdown; the record rebuilt 7.82 units for every unit of deepest loss.
Does not measure — how long recovery took, or whether the drawdown could have run deeper under other conditions.
Return-to-Drawdown Relationship
Net profit of EUR 69,351.89 stands against a maximum balance drawdown of 16.31% (relative). The relationship is favourable in the modelled record; it remains subject to the assumption set documented in Section 11 and can deteriorate in live execution.
The 301-trade execution record is reviewed for outcome distribution, payoff structure, and loss discipline. Win rate is presented as one property of the distribution — never as a summary of quality.
Section 07 · Execution Record
301
TOTAL TRADES
263
PROFITABLE
38
LOSING
EUR 230.40
EXPECTED PAYOFF / TRADE
EUR 2,093.07
LARGEST PROFIT
−EUR 3,859.64
LARGEST LOSS
Derived From Audit Aggregates
AVG WINNER ≈ EUR 399.6
AVG LOSER ≈ −EUR 940.7
PAYOFF RATIO ≈ 0.42
DERIVED ARITHMETICALLY FROM NET PROFIT, PROFIT FACTOR, AND TRADE COUNTS · NOT SEPARATELY STATED IN THE AUDIT EXTRACT
Interpretive Note
A high win rate can be misleading when not evaluated alongside loss magnitude, payoff distribution, and tail-risk behaviour.
Here, the average loser is roughly 2.4× the average winner: the record wins often and loses larger. That structure is viable while the hit rate holds — and it is exactly the property a reviewer should stress-test, since a modest decline in win rate has an outsized effect on expectancy.
Not Itemised in This Evidence Set
These fields are structural placeholders reserved for verified data integration; no values are estimated.
The X10 record was produced across a governed ten-instrument research universe, not a single isolated asset. Instrument-level contribution figures are reserved for verified data integration — none are estimated here.
Section 08 · Research Universe
MSFT
TECHNOLOGY
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
GOOG
COMMUNICATION SERVICES
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
AVGO
SEMICONDUCTORS
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
AAPL
TECHNOLOGY
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
COST
CONSUMER STAPLES
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
MCD
CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
ABBV
HEALTHCARE
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
PANW
CYBERSECURITY
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
MAR
HOTELS & TRAVEL
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
TMUS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CONTRIBUTION · PENDING
Instrument-level return contribution, drawdown contribution, allocation weights, and correlation grouping are structural placeholders in this build. The layout is data-ready: verified figures from the audit dossier can populate this matrix without redesign. No percentages are fabricated in the interim.
A result is not fully understood until the market condition that produced it is identified.
Regime classification is the organising concept of the MSIIA Methodology and Risk Framework. The regime ledger below is structural: classifications are defined, while per-regime statistics await verified segmentation of the audit record.
Section 09 · Market Conditions
| REGIME | CLASSIFICATION | TRADES | RETURN CONTRIB. | DD CONTRIB. | HIT RATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TRENDING | Directional structure with sustained conviction; primary opportunity state | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING |
| NEUTRAL | Range-bound structure; selective participation under tighter gating | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING |
| HIGH-VOLATILITY | Elevated dispersion; exposure reduced by supervisory control | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING |
| EVENT-SENSITIVE | Scheduled releases and earnings windows; entry suppression applies | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING |
| RISK-OFF / DEFENSIVE | Adverse structural conditions; capital preservation posture dominates | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING |
PER-REGIME STATISTICS ARE PENDING VERIFIED SEGMENTATION OF THE AUDIT RECORD · CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS FOLLOW THE MSIIA RISK FRAMEWORK · NO PER-REGIME VALUES ARE ESTIMATED
Aggregate consistency figures are confirmed; month-by-month segmentation is not published in this evidence set. The calendar below is a data-ready structure — it will carry verified monthly values without layout change, and carries none until then.
Section 10 · Calendar Review
MONTHLY SEGMENTATION NOT PUBLISHED IN THIS EVIDENCE SET · NO MONTHLY RETURNS ARE FABRICATED
Confirmed Aggregates
Reading Note
Consistency is assessed by the distribution of periodic outcomes, not by the terminal figure. Until verified monthly values are integrated, the confirmed aggregates and the drawdown record in Section 05 are the appropriate basis for judging stability.
A result is only as strong as the conditions under which it was produced. The register below states every known testing parameter; where a value is not documented in the evidence set, it is marked rather than assumed.
Section 11 · Test Conditions
THE FULL PARAMETER RECORD IS PART OF THE GATED X10 AUDIT DOSSIER (PEPFIA) · UNDISCLOSED FIELDS ARE MARKED, NEVER ASSUMED
Section 12 · Evidence Pipeline
Performance evidence is published only after its testing conditions, risk characteristics, and statistical context are documented.
STAGE 01
Source data integrity and continuity are confirmed.
STAGE 02
The test environment and its assumptions are recorded.
STAGE 03
Configuration is checked against overfitting indicators.
STAGE 04
Sample size, distribution, and ratio coherence are examined.
STAGE 05
Drawdown, exposure, and stress behaviour are assessed.
STAGE 06
Results, conditions, and disclosures are consolidated.
STAGE 07
The dossier is released under gated, account-based access.
INTERNAL REVIEW PIPELINE · NO INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY AUDIT OF A LIVE OPERATING RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED — SEE SECTION 13
No historical result, simulation, backtest, or model can eliminate uncertainty. Performance must always be interpreted together with testing assumptions, market conditions, execution limitations, and risk exposure.
Historical performance does not guarantee future results.
Backtesting embeds assumptions about pricing, fills, and costs that live markets do not honour.
Live execution may differ materially through spread, slippage, latency, and broker constraints.
Market conditions change; a regime distribution observed historically may not recur.
Liquidity conditions may affect execution quality and achievable position size.
Software behaviour depends on configuration, infrastructure, and operator discipline.
Future drawdowns can exceed historical values, in depth and in duration.
No performance outcome is assured; capital is at risk in any deployment.
MSIIA products are software systems, not guaranteed investment outcomes and not investment advice.
No independently audited live operating record has been reviewed; the evidence boundary applies to every figure on this page.
The evidence on this page belongs to one system. It should be read as documentation of that system — alongside its methodology, architecture, and risk controls — not as a promotion of it.
Section 14 · System Reference
MSIIA™ X10
Evidence Availability
License Editions
LITE
ENTRY LICENSE EDITION
€950
STANDARD
CORE LICENSE EDITION
€2,200
PRO
FULL LICENSE EDITION
€3,750
Editions differ in configuration scope and support terms, documented on the product page. The performance evidence above is not edition-specific unless stated in the dossier.
Section 15 · Closing Position
Performance should be reviewed alongside methodology, architecture, risk controls, testing conditions, and product limitations. The pages below complete that context.
EVIDENCE → CONTEXT → RISK → CONSISTENCY → VERIFICATION → LIMITATIONS · MSIIA QUANTITATIVE INTELLIGENCE LAB
