Module 6 · Lesson 6 of 17 · Risk, process, and mindset · About 5 minutes
Journaling Your Reasoning, Not Just Your Results
On this page
Before you read: A Pre-Trade Checklist: Slowing Down Before Acting
What you will learn
- What a trading journal entry can record before, during and after a trade.
- Why writing reasoning before the outcome is known matters.
- How screenshots of your own charts with settings visible support honest review.
What goes into a journal entry?
A year from now, what would you want to know about today’s trade?
The records below are invented manual simulator entries under SIM-P v1.0 from Building a Trading Plan Document. They are not real trades, account exports or evidence of performance. All entered cases have a stipulated 100 entry, 10 units, $1/point/unit, 98 adverse reference and $2 fixed position round-trip costs. Planned amount=$20+$2=$22. Each case is in a separate invented session D1–D5. A positive outcome does not repair a failed gate. The fictional post-entry observation log stipulates that J01/J05 first reach 98 at 09:15 CST; J02/J03/J04 never reach 98 before their 09:30 CST time exit. These are after-entry path facts for applying the exit rule, not substitute before-entry evidence for J04.
Filled entry J01 — compliant loser, Day D1:
- 09:05 CST, before hypothetical entry/next bar: “SIM-P v1.0; snapshot A01 saved. Frozen earlier range 97–99. Completed close 100 observed; 99<100≤100 is true. Input/check fields complete. Hypothesis for observation: a subsequent bar could continue beyond the range, but that is unproven. Invalidation reference 98; entry 100, quantity 10, $1/point/unit, $2 fixed total costs; planned amount 22≤25. No later bar visible.”
- 09:06 CST: simulated entry 100. No rule or adverse reference revised.
- 09:15 CST, after the stated adverse reference is reached: simulated exit 98 under the example’s zero-extra-slippage assumption. “Gross (98−100)×10=−$20; fixed costs $2; net −$22. I felt disappointed. Eligibility and recorded size matched v1.0. Losing outcome is not evidence the before-note was false.”
Filled entry J02 — confirmed rule-breaking winner, Day D2:
- 09:05 CST, before entry: “Snapshot A02. Frozen range 97–99; last completed close 98.75. Strict above 99 gate FALSE. Size 10/adverse 98/cost assumption known; current next-bar print 100 is not a qualifying completed close.”
- 09:06 CST: nevertheless enter simulated 100; note “I disregarded the completed-bar gate.” This is a known eligibility breach, not an undocumented suspicion.
- 09:30 CST: simulated exit 103 at the predeclared time exit. Gross (103−100)×10=$30; less $2=+$28 net. “I feel relieved; the outcome does not change the false gate. Do not relabel the 100 intrabar print as the earlier completed close.”
Remaining filled entered records — not omitted from the later review:
| ID/day | Before-entry fact/evidence, 09:05 CST unless missing | Entry 09:06 CST | Exit/time CST | Gross | Fixed costs | Final net | Process state |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J03/D3 | Snapshot A03; range 97–99; completed close 100; gate true; all v1.0 checks and 22-dollar plan recorded | 100×10 units | 102 at 09:30, predeclared time exit | +$20 | $2 | +$18 | Followed; cost typo corrected below |
| J04/D4 | Before-note/snapshot unavailable. Do NOT invent its close, gate or emotional state. Later simulator entry/exit log supplies prices only | 100×10 units | 99 at 09:30 time exit | −$10 | $2 | −$12 | Eligibility UNKNOWN; before-record unavailable, not automatically a proven failed gate |
| J05/D5 | Snapshot A05; range 97–99; completed close 100; gate true; all v1.0 checks and 22-dollar plan recorded | 100×10 units | 98 at 09:15 adverse reference | −$20 | $2 | −$22 | Followed; disappointment recorded after, not used as a new entry rationale |
J04’s record availability gap is itself a review problem; it does not prove what its original eligibility result was. Do not count it as compliant, nor turn “unknown” into the same thing as J02’s documented failed gate.
Two filled no-entry observations, kept outside the five-trade profit denominator:
| ID/day/time CST | Facts known then | Recorded action and reason | Later outcome treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| N01/D1/09:00 | Complete inputs; completed close 98.75; frozen band 97–99 | No entry: strict above 99 gate false | A later rise, if any, does not revise the earlier no-entry reason. J01’s 09:05 observation is a later, separate opportunity. |
| N02/D3/09:00 | Completed close 100 reported, but required input snapshot unavailable | No entry: insufficient evidence; gate not certified | Do not fill missing fields from future bars. J03’s later 09:05 snapshot is a new completed record, not retroactive proof. |
Thus seven decision records are shown: five entered simulations plus two no-entry observations. This is an educational record set, not a validated strategy sample.
Journal diagram
Read the diagram step by step
- Authored fiction. Education only, not market observations or a forecast.
- Separate study sessions D1–D5, all times CST. Stipulated entry 100, quantity 10, $1/point/unit, adverse 98. FIXED $2 total POSITION round-trip costs; planned amount $20+$2=$22. Not observed fills, member data or evidence of performance.
- Outcome does NOT repair the gate
- Five entered simulations; two separate no-entry observations. TRUE/FALSE/UNKNOWN remain distinct. No eligibility fact is reconstructed from a later profit or loss.
- J01 / D1 · TRUE gate
- 09:05 CST · BEFORE A01: frozen 97–99 range, completed close 100; 99<100≤100. All checks saved. Hypothesis: a subsequent bar could continue beyond the range, but that is unproven. No later bar visible.
- 09:06 CST · SIMULATED ENTRY 100×10 units; no actual market fill is claimed.
- 09:15 CST · AFTER exit 98 Adverse reference reached; gross −$20, fixed position cost $2; net −$22. Disappointed; rules followed.
- J02 / D2 · FALSE gate
- 09:05 CST · BEFORE A02: completed close 98.75; above 99 gate FALSE. Next-bar 100 is not a qualifying completed close.
- 09:30 CST · AFTER exit 103 Time exit; gross +$30, fixed position cost $2; net +$28. Relieved; documented gate breach remains.
- J03 / D3 · TRUE gate
- 09:05 CST · BEFORE A03: frozen 97–99, completed close 100; all checks and 22-dollar plan recorded.
- 09:30 CST · AFTER exit 102 Gross +$20. Original cost $1/net +$19 retained as incorrect; corrected 09:35 to cost $2/net +$18 below.
- J04 / D4 · UNKNOWN gate
- BEFORE evidence unavailable Before-note/image unavailable. Do NOT invent close, gate or emotion; later prices are not before-entry evidence.
- 09:30 CST · AFTER exit 99 Time exit; gross −$10, fixed position cost $2; net −$12. Missing evidence is not a proven failed gate.
- J05 / D5 · TRUE gate
- 09:05 CST · BEFORE A05: frozen 97–99, completed close 100; all checks and 22-dollar plan recorded.
- 09:15 CST · AFTER exit 98 Adverse reference reached; gross −$20, fixed position cost $2; net −$22. Disappointment after entry does not revise reasoning.
- Actual timestamps on a proportional axis
- CST: before / entry / after-note / appended correction
- 09:30 CST · original AFTER note retained Mistaken cost $1; gross $20; typed net +$19. This original after-note is retained, not silently replaced.
- 09:35 CST · append correction SIM-P v1.0 specified fixed $2 round trip. Correct net=$20−$2=+$18. Changes accounting only, NOT the 09:05 before-facts, rule or hypothesis.
- NO ENTRY · outside five-trade denominator
- N01 / D1 · 09:00 CST · failed gate Complete inputs; frozen 97–99, completed close 98.75. Strict above 99 gate FALSE: no entry. J01’s 09:05 observation is a later, separate opportunity.
- N02 / D3 · 09:00 CST · missing input Completed close 100 reported, but required snapshot unavailable. No entry: insufficient evidence; gate NOT certified. J03’s 09:05 record is new, not retroactive proof.
- Five entered simulations and two no-entry observations separate pre-event evidence, hypotheses, outcomes, confirmed breach and unknown eligibility. A cost correction retains the original after-note rather than rewriting the before-note.
Illustrative diagram constructed for teaching. Not real market data.
Five entered simulations and two no-entry observations separate pre-event evidence, hypotheses, outcomes, confirmed breach and unknown eligibility. A cost correction retains the original after-note rather than rewriting the before-note.
Why write reasoning first?
Why does it matter when the note is written?
The timestamp separates known facts, a hypothesis and later observations. J01’s gate was known true before a loss; J02’s was known false before a gain. Keeping both prevents a “perfect trader” story built only from outcomes. J04 demonstrates why missing evidence cannot be replaced with a confident post-hoc narrative.
Completed correction trail, J03: At 09:30 CST the first after-note mistakenly typed $1 cost and +$19 net from $20 gross. At 09:35 CST append: “Clerical correction: v1.0 specified fixed $2 roundtrip; verified simulator accounting assumption is $2. Original after-note retained. Correct net=$20−$2=+$18. This correction changes cost/result accounting, not the 09:05 facts, planned rule or hypothesis.”
A correction should identify who/what changed, when, the old value, the corrected value and its basis. Do not rewrite the before-note to manufacture foresight. All identities here are fictional; no member data is required or transmitted. This procedure supports an auditable example; no psychological or performance effectiveness is certified.
How do screenshots help?
Can you trust your memory of what the chart looked like?
A screenshot can preserve a view but cannot prove a complete thought process, execution quality or unseen historical inputs. Use your own permitted records; do not redistribute licensed charts or seek other members’ profit screenshots.
Completed fictional annotation specification for A01, no actual market screenshot: “SIM-X / completed five-minute study bars / CST / plan SIM-P v1.0 / captured D1 09:05 CST / snapshot A01.” On an original authored panel, label the three supplied prior-bar rows with frozen band 97–99 and completed close 100; draw a hard right edge at 09:05 with “later bars hidden.” Put “eligibility TRUE” and “entry/cost values are simulator assumptions, not observed fills” in separate boxes. Link it to J01’s before-note, not its later outcome. An exit annotation A01-OUT at 09:15 can show the stipulated 98 exit, with a different timestamp and explicit after-event status.
For J04 the correct annotation is “before image unavailable,” not a reconstructed entry screenshot passed off as contemporary. See Bar Replay for Practice: Uses and Limits for blind replay and Trading Plans, Journaling and Honest Backtesting for the existing reasoning on honest records.
What this does not tell you about journaling
- Which fields your own journal needs.
- Whether journaling improves anyone’s results.
- How to judge whether a trade idea was good.
- Nothing here suggests any trade.
Method in Practice: three entries, written well and written badly
Fictional example. John, Harbor Index futures, the prices, times, costs and results are all invented for teaching. This shows how a written plan can be built and tested. It is not a recommendation, and nothing here says how often this idea works.
Try it on a real chart. Test this idea yourself on past sessions with bar replay. Keep your own count, including the days with no trade.
The idea. The lesson says to write the reasoning first, before the outcome is known. Here are John's real entries for the Volume Profile Explained: POC, Value Area, HVN, LVN lesson's three replays, each next to a weak version that someone might write instead. The weak ones are all written after the fact, and they're all about the result.
Three outcomes
-
Replay A: strong entry vs. "Nice trade, should have held for more"
-
Replay B: strong entry vs. "Market was manipulated, stop got hunted"
-
Replay C: strong entry vs. nothing written at all
Show the journal entries
| Replay | John's entry (strong) | A weak version |
|---|---|---|
| A, worked | Before, 09:58: "Open 100.70, below value. First close above 101.20 at 09:30 (101.35). If 10:00 closes above, I buy 2 at market. Wrong if a close below 101.20." After: "Filled 101.55. Half at 101.80. Second reference missed by 0.05, time limit closed it at 102.15. +$75. Followed the plan. No change after one session." | "Nice trade, made money. Should have held for more." |
| B, failed | Before, 09:28: "Two closes above 101.20 by 09:30 (101.28, 101.32). Buying 2. Wrong if a close below 101.20." After: "Filled 101.37. Closed 100.95 at 10:00, out at 100.90. −$104, more than the $50-per-contract estimate, inside the cap. Followed the plan." | "Market was manipulated, my stop got hunted. Should have held." |
| C, no trade | 09:58: "One close above (101.26), then 101.12. Not two in a row. No trade." 12:00: "Cutoff. No setup today." | (nothing written) |
What makes the weak versions weak: they're written after the result, they judge the outcome instead of the process, and they invent causes ("manipulated", "hunted") that no chart can show (Liquidity, Sweeps and Stop Runs: A Descriptive Look).
Test it yourself
- For your next ten sessions, write the "why" before the order and the result after. Use two different colors.
- Reread last week's entries. Underline every word that was written knowing the outcome.
- Write an entry on no-trade days too.
Where it breaks
- A journal only helps if it's reread (The Weekly Review: Process Before Outcome).
- Strong entries take time. Keep them short and consistent.
- Screenshots without notes don't record why you acted.
Reflection question: Could someone tell from your last journal entry what you knew before the result?
Check yourself
- Why is J02 a process breach even though it nets +$28? Hint: memory rewrites.
- Is J04 another confirmed eligibility breach? Is it compliant?
- Why can J03’s $19→$18 correction be legitimate without rewriting its reason?
- Do N01/N02 belong in the five-trade win-rate denominator?
- Name four fields a journal entry can record. Must an emotion disclosure be one of them? Hint: reason, checklist, size, feelings.
- Why record chart settings with a screenshot rather than keep an unlabeled image? Hint: seeing what you saw.
Reflect on your own process
- Does your journal timestamp the reasoning written before a trade separately from notes written after it?
- How do you record a correction to a journal entry without overwriting the original note?
- What would your journal show for a trade whose before-entry note is missing?
- Could someone tell from your last journal entry what you knew before the result?
Sources
This lesson’s numbers are invented teaching examples. Their arithmetic was checked; no outside source is needed.