FX Trend (cross-sectional 12-1): a killed candidate
Verdict: KILLED Stage: screen prototype
Identity: fx_trend_cs
Cross-sectional currency trend, net of cost, 2016-2026. Flat (net Sharpe -0.035) — a weak-trend decade for FX. Below the 0.30 screen bar. KILLED at screen.
Why it was worth testing
This died at the screen stage, before a full walk-forward was ever run. Screening exists so that ideas which cannot clear a coarse, cost-aware bar do not consume the far more expensive machinery behind it. A screen kill is a cheap kill, and it is published for the same reason as an expensive one: the trial was still spent, and it still raises the evidence bar for everything already in the book.
The result
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Screen net Sharpe | -0.0350 |
What this does and does not say
It says this configuration, on this data, net of the costs we charge, did not clear the bar it pre-registered. It does not say the underlying economic effect does not exist, that no implementation of it works, or that someone with different data or different execution would reach the same conclusion. A null is evidence about a test, not a proof about a market.
It also does not say the trial was free. Every hypothesis tested raises the deflated-Sharpe hurdle for every sleeve already in the book, including the ones that survived. That is why the kill count is published beside the survivor count rather than behind it.