Last Updated: 2026-10-26
An automation review should answer three separate questions: did the rules execute as intended, what happened to total account value, and was the result better than a relevant alternative using the same available cash? A bot's “grid profit” widget cannot answer all three. This is a worked review method, not a personal performance journal or a recommended allocation.
Define the job before choosing the platform
Write one sentence for each automated task: buy on a schedule, rebalance to a chosen allocation, execute a price-triggered instruction, or manage a range of orders. Scheduled purchases and averaging-down ladders are different rules; a platform label such as “DCA” is not enough to identify which one runs.
Record the instrument, custody location, capital reserved for later orders, maximum permitted exposure, rule version and interruption policy. BTC/USDT is a bitcoin market quoted in a stablecoin; it does not make the bitcoin inventory stable. Two bots holding similar assets can lose together even when their interfaces and venues differ.
Choose a provider only after checking whether it implements the actual rule, supports the account and jurisdiction, exposes usable order records and allows the required recovery actions. A native grid bot is not a substitute for a custom signal rule simply because both automate orders. There is no universally suitable automated/manual percentage split.
A review that does not mistake a deposit for profit
The following figures are invented teaching data. Values include cash and marked open positions after the costs in this example. The benchmark uses the same contribution dates; it is not allowed to invest money before it becomes available.
Scroll sideways to see every column. Keyboard: focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Point in the period | Automated account | Comparison portfolio |
|---|---|---|
| Opening value | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Value immediately before a contribution | $1,100 | $1,050 |
| New external contribution | $500 | $500 |
| Value immediately after it | $1,600 | $1,550 |
| Closing value | $1,520 | $1,580 |
Account dollar result: $1,520 − $1,000 − $500 = $20. The comparison earns $80 on the same contributed dollars. The automated account grew by $520, but $500 came from its owner. It finished $60 behind the comparison in this constructed period.
With valuations immediately around the contribution, the account's linked subperiod return is 1.10 × 0.95 − 1 = 4.5%. The comparison is 1.05 × (1,580 / 1,550) − 1 ≈ 7.03%. Those time-weighted returns describe the investment path independently of contribution size; they are not $20/$1,500 and $80/$1,500. A money-weighted calculation would need actual cash-flow dates as well. If the intermediate valuations are missing, report that limitation instead of manufacturing a smooth curve.
Do not subtract a fee again if it is already reflected in the balances. Record subscriptions or other costs paid outside the account separately; the table's result excludes any unrecorded outside costs. Use consistent prices and timestamps for open inventory. Transfers between your own accounts are not new contributions to a consolidated portfolio.
Compare against the alternative you could actually have used
For a recurring purchase plan, compare the same contribution schedule with the stated alternative, including its fees. A lump-sum benchmark that invests future salary on day one has an information and funding advantage the reader did not have. For a grid, record the opening cash/asset mix and compare with holding that same mix; show unrealized inventory losses alongside closed-cycle gains.
One favourable month does not establish that automation caused better returns. Different exposure, market direction, deposits, fees and selected evaluation dates can explain differences. Preserve unsuccessful periods and abandoned variants. Report what the comparison measures rather than calling the excess “AI alpha.”
Separate execution review from investment results
Scroll sideways to see every column. Keyboard: focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Observation | Review question | Useful record |
|---|---|---|
| Missing or duplicate order | Did the system lose an event or repeat a request? | Stable intent ID, request and venue response |
| Outcome unknown after timeout | Was the order accepted or filled? | Reconciled orders, fills and balances |
| Strategy loss with correct execution | Did the tested rule behave as specified? | Rule version, price path, costs and benchmark |
| Manual intervention | Was it an agreed failure response or an undocumented rule change? | Reason, time and resulting state |
| Unexpected token balance | Is it an open position, transfer or parser gap? | Source transaction and account reconciliation |
“Never override the bot” is not a sound incident policy. Define in advance when new orders stop, who investigates, and how existing orders and positions are handled. A process heartbeat alone cannot establish fresh data or correct positions. See the system-state guide for timeout and restart cases.
What to keep at the end of the month
Save the contribution/withdrawal ledger, opening and closing positions, costs, benchmark definition, rule changes, incidents and time spent on monitoring and recovery. Record “unknown” where a source is missing. Decide whether to keep testing, repair an operational defect or retire an unsupported rule. Increasing size is not the required outcome of a completed review.
Automation can make a chosen process repeatable. It cannot guarantee sleep, remove custody risk or turn a losing strategy into a profitable one. Trade-only permissions still allow harmful orders if compromised. Separate venues add operational work and may share failure exposures; they do not create a fixed maximum loss.
Educational examples, not investment advice or reported account results. Crypto positions can lose their full value. AITR may receive commissions from other links on the site; this worksheet requires no provider purchase.