Pre-registered studies
Research tool · not investment advice. Full disclaimer →
New here? How to read
Every number on this page names its source — start with “How to read”.
Recorded gates, results and registration evidence.
Descriptive record only — past data and published method.
The studies
9 study cards · 31 registry entriesSource: the pre-registration record · sha-256.
These are curated study cards, not the full registry. 9 cards; 31 registry records. A study date is not its hash registration time. Retroactive and forced registrations retain their recorded notes. This self-hosted registry is mutable and has no independent timestamp witness. Cards without a seal do not claim verification under this docstring scheme.
PEAD on real BSE result dates, delivery-confirmeddescriptive lens CONFIRMEDbook FALSIFIED
| Study record date | 2026-07-05 (A-study) · within-season variant pre-registered 2026-07-05b |
|---|---|
| HypothesisThe claim the study set out to test, in one line — what was expected to happen, stated plainly enough to be wrong. | A high Net-Profit surprise (SUE, no analysts) CONFIRMED by abnormal delivered value drifts upward over the next ~60 sessions — on REAL announcement dates, zero look-ahead. |
| Recorded gate | Descriptive: cohort t ≥ ~2 on leak-free dates. Book: net return/vol > 0.89 (Nifty-500 B&H) in BOTH walk-forward halves under tiered+ATR costs. |
| ResultWhat actually happened when the test ran, against that gate. Failures are published here in the same form as passes — a method that did not clear its gate is recorded, not removed. | Descriptive: SUE-Q5 × DELIV-T3 mean CAR60 +7.62% (n=235, t_cohort 1.92); same surprise on thin delivery only +3.7% (n=200); population +3.5%. Bad news did not drift. Book: EVERY wrapper failed — trailing net return/vol 0.10 · no-delivery 0.02 · 1.5× cost −0.32 · hedged −0.58 · within-season (the pre-registered last cell) 0.06 — vs benchmark 0.85. |
| What shippedWhat was actually built on the back of the study, if anything. Often "descriptive only" — the read is published for context while the tradeable claim it might have supported is not, because it failed its gate. | The results-reaction war room (who just reported + delivery confirmation + realized drift, base-rates labelled). No ranking, no trigger, no book — the tradeable version is recorded dead in the failure ledger. |
| Source of truth | the strategy ledger § Experiment 2026-07-05 |
| Gate hash (SHA-256) | 83a290a0ce12742e49d6570128f5a45720be4cb5fe99319c4a3ded9084590189 |
| Registered | PEAD on real BSE result dates, delivery-confirmed — registered 2026-07-07 19:31Z |
| Registration note | retro-hashed 2026-07-07: gate text predates the registry; runs predate the hash (the change record is the witness) |
| Hash scheme | SHA-256 of the unmodified module docstring encoded as UTF-8 |
Download matching gate text. SHA-256 of these UTF-8 bytes reproduces the displayed hash.
Accumulation-footprint detector (front-detect the insider from the tape)gate FAIL — published
| Study record date | 2026-07-05b — gate written in the module docstring before the run |
|---|---|
| HypothesisThe claim the study set out to test, in one line — what was expected to happen, stated plainly enough to be wrong. | Insider/SAST accumulation episodes leave a detectable tape footprint BEFORE the filing becomes public (delivery %, trade size, volume, price character vs self- and cross-sectional controls). |
| Recorded gate | ≥2 of 4 features clear Cliff's δ ≥ +0.20 vs BOTH control sets. |
| ResultWhat actually happened when the test ran, against that gate. Failures are published here in the same form as passes — a method that did not clear its gate is recorded, not removed. | FAIL 1/4 — only avg-trade-size cleared (δ +0.329 / +0.250). Structural finding: 764 of 947 episodes had NO pre-public window at all — SEBI PIT T+2 disclosure means the tape you can trade is already public. Usable n=54. delivery-% showed ~no case elevation (δ ≈ +0.07), consistent with the accumulation tape's earlier alpha failure. |
| What shippedWhat was actually built on the back of the study, if anything. Often "descriptive only" — the read is published for context while the tradeable claim it might have supported is not, because it failed its gate. | The trade-size ratio as a DESCRIPTIVE column (Ticket, on Screen+ / Positioning / dossier) — a characterization, never a detector. Detection pivots to post-public designs (disclosure-drift E-03, campaign arcs E-04), each requiring fresh pre-registration. |
| Source of truth | the strategy ledger § Study 2026-07-05b |
| Gate hash (SHA-256) | 0d86d11bd7c49d1f9483ebded9302701932b8a110be45c10affc2595cd30bd8f |
| Registered | Accumulation-footprint detector (front-detect the insider from the tape) — registered 2026-07-07 19:31Z |
| Registration note | retro-hashed 2026-07-07: gate text predates the registry; runs predate the hash (the change record is the witness) |
| Hash scheme | SHA-256 of the unmodified module docstring encoded as UTF-8 |
Matching gate text is unavailable on this host.
Insider disclosure drift (E-03, post-public)gate FAIL — placebo caught it
| Study record date | 2026-07-07 (module docstring before the run) |
|---|---|
| HypothesisThe claim the study set out to test, in one line — what was expected to happen, stated plainly enough to be wrong. | Conviction promoter-buy clusters drift up after their first public disclosure (the pre-public window is structurally dead — SEBI T+2). |
| Recorded gate | Top-value-quartile CAR60 t_cohort ≥ 2 AND observed clears the shuffled-date placebo p95 (n=200, seed 42). |
| ResultWhat actually happened when the test ran, against that gate. Failures are published here in the same form as passes — a method that did not clear its gate is recorded, not removed. | The trap this page exists for: value-Q4 CAR60 +8.26% (n=66, plain t 2.87) — looks like a product. The placebo null's p95 is +9.52%: random windows of the same names drift just as hard (the 2025-26 tape). Inflation 0.87×, empirical p 0.085; cohort t is NaN because the feed is only ~10 months deep. NULL published. |
| What shippedWhat was actually built on the back of the study, if anything. Often "descriptive only" — the read is published for context while the tradeable claim it might have supported is not, because it failed its gate. | Nothing. Re-attempt condition on record: ≥8 quarterly cohorts of feed depth and a placebo-clearing mean. |
| Source of truth | the strategy ledger § Studies 2026-07-08 |
| Gate hash (SHA-256) | b62429563b21a9a9d54f19be4615293e46d87b3259f9f43bb99ae4d6c3b9ce34 |
| Registered | Insider disclosure drift (E-03, post-public) — registered 2026-07-07 19:31Z |
| Registration note | retro-hashed 2026-07-07: gate text predates the registry; runs predate the hash (the change record is the witness) |
| Hash scheme | SHA-256 of the unmodified module docstring encoded as UTF-8 |
Matching gate text is unavailable on this host.
Filing-latency tell (late vs own norm)gate FAIL — null published
| Study record date | 2026-07-07 |
|---|---|
| HypothesisThe claim the study set out to test, in one line — what was expected to happen, stated plainly enough to be wrong. | Filing later than one's own historical norm is a tell — lateness predicts bad surprises and negative drift. |
| Recorded gate | |t_cohort(Q5−Q1 CAR60)| ≥ 2 AND |gap| > label-permutation p95 (500 perms). |
| ResultWhat actually happened when the test ran, against that gate. Failures are published here in the same form as passes — a method that did not clear its gate is recorded, not removed. | Half the folk story is real: the latest filers carry the weakest surprises (mean SUE 0.77 vs 1.04 for the earliest). But it does not price: CAR60 gap −0.81% (t_cohort −0.84), inside the ±2.51% permutation band. Lateness predicts surprise MIX, not tradeable drift. |
| What shippedWhat was actually built on the back of the study, if anything. Often "descriptive only" — the read is published for context while the tradeable claim it might have supported is not, because it failed its gate. | Nothing — no war-room flag. The surprise-mix fact may inform reading, never a signal. |
| Source of truth | the strategy ledger § Studies 2026-07-08 |
| Gate hash (SHA-256) | 06e7c085f5008abdbbfdccba6456fb7ac84813319dc7acb17fd84f0fe84b3dc5 |
| Registered | Filing-latency tell (late vs own norm) — registered 2026-07-07 19:31Z |
| Registration note | retro-hashed 2026-07-07: gate text predates the registry; runs predate the hash (the change record is the witness) |
| Hash scheme | SHA-256 of the unmodified module docstring encoded as UTF-8 |
Matching gate text is unavailable on this host.
Concall growth-intent walk-forward (real call dates)gate FAIL — covered-name beta
| Study record date | 2026-07-07; design correction recorded before the run (condition on statement PRESENCE at the call, not settlement) |
|---|---|
| HypothesisThe claim the study set out to test, in one line — what was expected to happen, stated plainly enough to be wrong. | Calls pushing specific guidance content (debt reduction, capex, volume…) drift differently over the next 60 sessions — the old month-granular panel showed +2.8%/+2.3%/+1.5% tilts. |
| Recorded gate | Per type (n≥100): t_cohort ≥ 2 AND same-sign halves AND the largest passing type clears the date-shuffle placebo. |
| ResultWhat actually happened when the test ran, against that gate. Failures are published here in the same form as passes — a method that did not clear its gate is recorded, not removed. | 9,461 real-dated events. Six types pass t+halves (debt_reduction +3.52% t 2.43; capex +3.07% t 2.70) — and the placebo unmasks all of it: random windows of the SAME covered names drift +2.75% (p95 +3.66%); the observed means sit inside the null band (inflation 0.52×, emp-p 0.925). The old panel tilts are recorded NOT reproducible on real dates. |
| What shippedWhat was actually built on the back of the study, if anything. Often "descriptive only" — the read is published for context while the tradeable claim it might have supported is not, because it failed its gate. | Nothing as an edge. Guidance remains a candor / kept-promise DESCRIPTIVE axis (Gate B fence unchanged). |
| Source of truth | the strategy ledger § Studies 2026-07-08 |
| Gate hash (SHA-256) | c1c4cf9d5a1a6c471a420d3a99c8c1d7ea26d4616b2bf2d433e8def6f094f2c0 |
| Registered | Concall growth-intent walk-forward (real call dates) — registered 2026-07-07 19:31Z |
| Registration note | retro-hashed 2026-07-07: gate text predates the registry; runs predate the hash (the change record is the witness) |
| Hash scheme | SHA-256 of the unmodified module docstring encoded as UTF-8 |
Matching gate text is unavailable on this host.
Dividend-surprise drift (E-11, post-ex)gate FAIL — payer beta
| Study record date | 2026-07-07 · the first gate HASHED before its run |
|---|---|
| HypothesisThe claim the study set out to test, in one line — what was expected to happen, stated plainly enough to be wrong. | A dividend far above a name's own norm marks strength that drifts over the following 60 sessions (post-ex, the conservative clock). |
| Recorded gate | Surprise-Q5 CAR60 t_cohort ≥ 2 AND the date-shuffle placebo clears (n=200, seed 42). |
| ResultWhat actually happened when the test ran, against that gate. Failures are published here in the same form as passes — a method that did not clear its gate is recorded, not removed. | 22 years, 9,166 usable events. Q5 drifts +1.61% (t 2.60) — and so does everything else: CUTS drift +1.99%, hikes +1.61%, the LOWEST-surprise quintile +2.28% (55 cohorts). The placebo seals it: post-ex windows (+2.13%) drift LESS than random windows of the same payers (null mean +2.48%, p95 +3.58%). The 'surprise' has no direction — it is dividend-payer beta. |
| What shippedWhat was actually built on the back of the study, if anything. Often "descriptive only" — the read is published for context while the tradeable claim it might have supported is not, because it failed its gate. | Nothing. Class rule generalized: covered-name / payer-universe drift is the null every event claim must beat. |
| Source of truth | the strategy ledger § Studies 2026-07-08 |
| Gate hash (SHA-256) | e9bd1a7ff792722a42e3e12bf3098cf54e9b44f52ffe045f3fbbd5752be108c4 |
| Registered | Dividend-surprise drift (E-11, post-ex) — registered 2026-07-07 19:31Z |
| Registration note | hashed BEFORE first run |
| Hash scheme | SHA-256 of the unmodified module docstring encoded as UTF-8 |
Matching gate text is unavailable on this host.
Rebrand pump (E-12, stitched rename series)gate FAIL — no pump exists
| Study record date | 2026-07-07 · gate hashed before the run |
|---|---|
| HypothesisThe claim the study set out to test, in one line — what was expected to happen, stated plainly enough to be wrong. | A symbol rename pumps on the new identity, then fades. |
| Recorded gate | CAR22 t_cohort ≥ 2 AND placebo clears (pump); mean(CAR60−CAR22) < 0 with |t| ≥ 2 (fade). Wolfe power rule: 111 usable events = full-power claim. |
| ResultWhat actually happened when the test ran, against that gate. Failures are published here in the same form as passes — a method that did not clear its gate is recorded, not removed. | The folk story is simply dead: CAR22 −0.41% (below even the placebo null of +0.47%), CAR60 +0.12%. No pump, and the fade leg earns no claim (pooled t 0.23; the cohort means run negative — outlier-carried, recorded as nuance). Method dividend: renames are unmeasurable on naive per-symbol series — this study shipped the reusable STITCHED old→new loader. |
| What shippedWhat was actually built on the back of the study, if anything. Often "descriptive only" — the read is published for context while the tradeable claim it might have supported is not, because it failed its gate. | Nothing tradeable; the stitched loader joins the harness for every future boundary-crossing study. |
| Source of truth | the strategy ledger § Studies 2026-07-08 |
| Gate hash (SHA-256) | c3f48a42abb118b69e2c8530cd93de19b166150e0ecb3c863c770acf1a88c352 |
| Registered | Rebrand pump (E-12, stitched rename series) — registered 2026-07-07 19:31Z |
| Registration note | hashed BEFORE first run |
| Hash scheme | SHA-256 of the unmodified module docstring encoded as UTF-8 |
Matching gate text is unavailable on this host.
Wolfe waves — geometry as a selection lensdescriptive selection edge (BULL only)trade book FALSIFIED
| Study record date | §A locked 2026-06-24 (rules), §C trade-mechanics tested 2026-06-25 |
|---|---|
| HypothesisThe claim the study set out to test, in one line — what was expected to happen, stated plainly enough to be wrong. | Completed Wolfe geometries mark exhaustion points whose resolutions beat matched baselines (entry pt-5 zone, SL zone-edge ±0.3%, T1/T2). |
| Recorded gate | Per-trade net edge vs matched non-pattern baselines; side-split honesty. |
| ResultWhat actually happened when the test ran, against that gate. Failures are published here in the same form as passes — a method that did not clear its gate is recorded, not removed. | The EDGE IS SELECTION, not mechanics: BULL completions carry +1.37% abnormal (median +2.14%) — but the mechanical trade book is dead: median −2%/trade net, the top 1% of trades carries 58% of profit. BEAR side is tail-only: regime-stripped −0.19%, decaying to −0.94% in 2021-26. |
| What shippedWhat was actually built on the back of the study, if anything. Often "descriptive only" — the read is published for context while the tradeable claim it might have supported is not, because it failed its gate. | The Wolfe scanner + chart overlay as a descriptive lens (BULL-weighted, side split shown); never a mechanical trigger. Harmonic (XABCD) ships under the same fence. |
| Source of truth | the strategy ledger Tier-2/§C · the Wolfe rule book |
| Registry status | No matched registry seal for this card |
Rigorous calendar seasonality on the PIT idiosyncratic residualdescriptive estate LIVEtradeable calendar edge FALSIFIED
| Study record date | 2026-07-12 — 3 hypothesis families sha256-hashed BEFORE any compute (2882ccbc · cb32d1b9 · e566904c), frozen in the pre-registration registry; the engine docstring is part of the hash, so the gate cannot move. |
|---|---|
| HypothesisThe claim the study set out to test, in one line — what was expected to happen, stated plainly enough to be wrong. | Do Indian indices / sectors / stocks run systematically hot or cold on the calendar (month · ISO-week · weekday) AFTER the market move is stripped out — a tradeable idiosyncratic-residual seasonality? |
| Recorded gate | A cell CERTIFIES only if it clears BOTH placebo nulls (circular-block + cyclic-rotation, p<0.05), family-wide BH-Yekutieli FDR, ≥15 scored years, out-of-sample sign-stability, AND a pre-pledged India mechanism — the year-label shuffle is banned (zero-width). Nothing is graded on the same data it was found in. |
| ResultWhat actually happened when the test ran, against that gate. Failures are published here in the same form as passes — a method that did not clear its gate is recorded, not removed. | 0 cells certified — across index + sector, all ~2,427 EQ stocks, and the broad Nifty 50/100/200/500 deepened to 2004 (~20 scored years, N-gate PASSES). The single strongest broad cell (Nifty 500 February) clears one placebo (p=0.0498) but dies under FDR. Individual names look overwhelming — MARUTI September up 89% of 18 years — yet clear the single-calendar placebo only to die under the multiple-months correction. Deeper data did not rescue it: the greying is on merits, not thin history. |
| What shippedWhat was actually built on the back of the study, if anything. Often "descriptive only" — the read is published for context while the tradeable claim it might have supported is not, because it failed its gate. | The Seasonal Tape estate — seasonal tape + screen + divergence + the event-cadence lens + the stock embed — kept strictly DESCRIPTIVE. Every drilled cell shows its year-by-year dispersion and a placebo ‘why-grey’ read; nothing is ranked, triggered, or tradeable. The greying IS the finding. |
| Source of truth | frozen families in the pre-registration registry |
| Registry status | No matched registry seal for this card |
Placebo control
🎲 Placebo, PEAD SUE-Q5 x DELIV-T3 CAR60 — observed +5.95% vs null mean +2.98% / null p95 +4.54% over 200 shuffles (seed 42). Observed / null-p95 = 1.3×; empirical one-sided p = 0.005. Generated 2026-07-07 06:03:13Z — a real effect must sit OUTSIDE the shuffled-date band; this one does.
Time-to-repair
⏱ Filing→surface MTTR (live) — 1896 fresh results events since Jul-07: median 3d filing→board; 398 surfaced by the next evening. Day-level (real BSE date → first-seen date); the baseline seed run is excluded.
Standing caveats
📏 Standing caveats — printed beside every claim, not buried: 44.1% of the 22-year tape mass is unjoinable to fundamentals (the delistings live exactly there); 1,706 / 1,722 delisted names are fundamentally dark; the price archive is left-censored at 2004-07-23 (773 names). Every fundamentals-conditioned lift is therefore survivor-tilted — the survivor-vs-terminal re-cut measures the direction of that bias.
What the record concludes
Price strength is the only engine of gross forward returns found so far; value, quality, credibility and accumulation are context layers, not rankers; and no factor here is a fundable net-of-cost edge over the index at size.
Every return/vol on this page is mean return divided by volatility, annualised. It is not the textbook risk-adjusted ratio: no risk-free rate is subtracted, so it reads higher than that ratio would. A descriptive research record, not investment advice.
Why pre-registration
a research standard, with the evidence limits shownSource: Published methodology.
The easiest way to find a false edge is to look at the data first and decide what counts as success afterwards. Pre-registration means recording the hypothesis and pass condition before a study runs. This ledger includes retrospective registrations; the dates and notes on each card describe the available record. A matching hash verifies the recorded bytes, but does not independently prove when the gate was written.
These cards — with the coverage boundary and the validation record — are assembled into the print-ready evidence pack.
A pre-registered gate is a promise made to yourself in public. If the result misses the bar you wrote before you looked, the answer is no.