1. Define the thing being reviewed
A platform, a broker programme and an individual manager are different objects. This edition contains eight product-documentation reviews. None establishes that a specific signal provider or manager has earned a claimed return.
2. Start with primary evidence
Read the provider’s operating documents and fee pages, record the date and link them in the review. Use the appropriate regulator for authorisation checks, not the provider’s logo or group name. A provider document supports a product description; it does not independently confirm performance or successful withdrawals.
3. Cover five investor questions
- Evidence: account type, full dates, verification and missing information.
- Risk: equity drawdown, open exposure, leverage and recovery behaviour.
- Cost: trading, subscription, management and performance charges.
- Control: custodian, legal entity, trading authority and loss settings.
- Exit: stopping instructions, handling open positions and withdrawing funds.
4. Keep fact and interpretation separate
Each review separates documented mechanics, our reading, unresolved issues and questions before allocation. We do not imply hands-on testing where none occurred. Material redirects or gaps are disclosed, as with the HFM investor FAQ.
5. Do not invent a ranking
We have not assembled a common-period, independently verified net-return dataset for the individual strategies. No numeric score or “best investment” label is awarded. Alphabetical sorting and the side-by-side table compare features, not expected returns. A future ranking would need a frozen, public method and comparable account evidence first.
6. Revisit and correct
Date every review. Recheck changed charges and terms, preserve substantive corrections and disclose commercial interests. The launch draft’s editorial policy specifies how evidence and updates should be handled.