Roadmap #

The roadmap follows evidence, not feature count. The engine already has more built-but-inactive capability than proven edge. Near-term work therefore focuses on observing admitted research in paper books and reaching trustworthy verdicts faster.

Near term #

A live paper book for private research #

The next product direction is a generic live paper book for separately held research strategies. It will run in real time, paper only. The public engine will know the frozen artifact identity and the paper-book events it needs to simulate, but it will not publish the strategy’s logic.

Private research strategies run in a separate private repository and reach the engine only through the shared backtest core and paper books. Their rules, prompts, parameters, registrations, trial counts, findings, and results remain private.

This direction still needs an admitted implementation plan. Until then, the current public scope does not authorize a new loader, service, endpoint, or book.

Faster backtests without weaker tests #

The shared backtest core already supports deterministic process-pool execution and byte-identical serial and parallel output. The next performance work is to reduce time spent copying data, starting workers, and repeating unchanged calculations while keeping the same point-in-time views, run identity, costs, holdout boundary, and reports.

Faster means more rapid answers to registered questions. It does not mean broader parameter grids or more variants on the same survivor-biased history.

Keep current evidence clean #

The live profitability books, daily agent, shadow observers, frozen forward records, and weekend checks continue to accumulate. A failed producer or missed window takes priority over a new feature. Registration revision 9 improves observability and contention behavior without changing research semantics.

Later, explicitly not now #

The personal-host IBKR paper execution and reconciliation plan is future work. It would run on separate personal hardware against a broker paper account, beside a frozen simulator twin. It would measure attribution, reconciliation, slippage, partial fills, and unexplained orders for one to three months.

That plan is proposed, not approved for implementation. There is no account action, credential, broker connection, installation, or order work now. It requires a Stage 1 policy pass and a new owner approval before anything begins.

Real capital is later still. It would require a separate plan, provider-pinned model identity, loss limits, capital steps, tax and instrument review, and clean broker-paper reconciliation. None of those conditions exists as current authority.

What would change the plan #

The roadmap changes when evidence changes:

• A prospective policy pass would make broker-paper design worth reconsidering.
• A policy kill would retire its book and reduce operational noise.
• A demonstrated simulator or data defect would take priority over research throughput.
• Better survivor-aware data could admit historical questions that are currently blocked.
• A material difference between modeled and observed opens would require a new registered fill cohort, not a quiet adjustment to old results.
• An owner decision could approve spending, personal hardware, or a later broker mandate.

Failures are investigated on demand by an agent; there is no push alerting. Operational incidents can reorder work, but they do not broaden authority. The default remains public research infrastructure, paper books, and no real money.