Managed-Futures fast-trend / real-futures breadth (campaign): a killed candidate
Verdict: KILLED Stage: screen prototype
Identity: mf_realfutures_fasttrend
Splits into robust-but-not-new (the slow book IS our existing AlphaTrend) and new-but-dead (the fast-trend leg is net-negative at every verifiable cost). Not a new sleeve. KILLED.
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 | 0.2000 |
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.