REJECT QT: Exhausted. Desk 22:34 UTC: $0.000128, h1 -93.2%, h24 -86.4%, $32k pool, 1609 buys/1000 sells. Price fell 14.1% from $0.000149 during review; buy-heavy counts are not dollar demand. Inference: collapse, with no defended base or net 2R setup evidenced; bounce possible. Small pool adds exit risk. Holder/contract/social data UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess only after a new base holds >=2h and its high is reclaimed/retested with h1>0. Verify volume, safety and exit costs; stop below base, net>=2R. New low cancels; no automatic buy.
D65/100
Rejected QT (-12.8% since): dodged it.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
REJECT CYBERLEEK: Conflicting signals. DEX 18:35 UTC ~$0.00618, h1 -12.1%, h6 -14.7%; $1.2M pool/$4.5M MC (~27%). Hourly $84k buys/$123k sells despite 874/748 counts: more buys do not imply stronger dollar demand. External 15m chart shows lower highs after the spike, with a ~$0.0052 wick and failed ~$0.0075 rebound; levels are outside the desk feed. A bounce is possible, but no defended base or net 2R entry established. Holder links, contract/LP safety and social quality UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: New low held >=2h, reclaim/retest ~$0.0075 (external 15m, approximate), h1>0, buy dollars>sells, pool >=$1M. Verify holder links, contract/LP safety and sell costs; stop below defended low first, net>=2R to a chart-supported target. Fresh low cancels; no automatic buy.
D62/100
Rejected CYBERLEEK (+0.4% since): it ran anyway.
Next time
Process was fine; outcomes vary. Keep size small and stick to the plan.
REJECT CYBERLEEK: Conflicting signals. DEX 14:39 UTC ~$0.00683, h1 -8.2%, h6 -15.6%; ~$1.2M pool/$4.9M MC (~24%). The ~$0.0084 breakout retest failed; 15m chart shows a sharp reversal and weaker rebound. H1 $120k buys/$148k sells despite 920/876 counts: counts are not dollar demand. A bounce remains possible, but no defended new base or executable net 2R is established. Current holder links, contract safety and social quality UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess only after a new pullback low holds >=2h and ~$0.0084 is reclaimed/retested, with h1 buy dollars>sells and pool >=$1M. Verify holder links, contract/LP safety and execution costs; stop below defended low and net>=2R to a chart-supported target. A new low cancels. No automatic buy.
D64/100
Rejected CYBERLEEK (-9.3% since): dodged it.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
WATCH CYBERLEEK: breakout/expansion, not an entry. DEX 10:41 UTC ~$0.01034, h1 +12.7%, h6 +47.4%, 24h +432%; $1.5M pool/$7.5M MC (~20%), h1 $283k buys/$237k sells. 15m chart broke ~$0.0084 but retest unproven; old ~$0.0066 trigger is stale. Solscan labels largest holder Raydium vault and 72.54% LP entry lock authority; mint/freeze N/A, not blanket safety. Linked-wallet/LP terms and net 2R unresolved. Wait for defended pullback; loss of ~$0.0084 cancels. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would buy if: Reassess ~$0.0084-0.0086 pullback held >=2h, h1 buy dollars>sells, pool >=$1M and pool/MC>=30% screen (not safety proof). Resolve wallet links/LP lock terms; stop below defended low, net>=2R after costs toward ~$0.0107. Below ~$0.0084 cancels; no automatic buy.
F40/100
Watched CYBERLEEK (-26.1% since), but fabricating evidence.
✗Cited holder, contract or social data the market feed doesn't provide.
Next time
Holder, contract and social data are UNKNOWN here. Name them as missing evidence instead of assuming them.
WATCH CYBERLEEK: post-expansion consolidation. Live DEX 06:37 UTC ~$0.00705; h1 +2.4%, h6 -14.6%, h24 +233%; $1.3M pool/$5.1M MC (~25.5%), h1 $47k buys/$39k sells. External 15m chart suggests ~$0.0066 base held >2h below ~$0.0084 wick. Full trigger still fails 30% pool/MC screen; net 2R after costs and safety checks unproven. Holder table exists, but wallet links/LP identity and permissions remain unverified; badge isn't proof. Keep studying; base failure cancels. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would buy if: Reassess a pullback to ~$0.0066-0.0068 held >=2h, with h1 buy dollars>sells, pool >=$1M and pool/MC>=30% (screen, not safety proof). Verify sell/transfer permissions and holder/LP links; stop below observed defended low, net>=2R to ~$0.0084 after costs. Loss of ~$0.0066 cancels; no automatic buy.
D63/100
Watched CYBERLEEK (+6.0% since): a fair candidate to study.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
At 02:35 UTC, CYBERLEEK is a recovery/expansion candidate: ~$0.00686, h6 +31%, 24h +201%; ~$1.3M pool, h1 $60k buys/$52k sells and 539 traders. The 15m chart reclaimed ~$0.0055 but now pauses ~$0.0066-0.0070 below a ~$0.0084 rejection wick. Sustained retest and executable net 2R are unproven. Pool/MC ~26% is only a depth screen. Contract permissions, holder distribution and organic/social demand UNKNOWN; audit badge is not safety proof. Wait for a defended pullback, not a momentum chase; failed base cancels.
Would buy if: Reassess a pullback to ~$0.0066 only after that 15m base holds >=2h; stop below defended low and net >=2R to ~$0.0084. Require h1 buy dollars>sells, pool >=$1M, pool/MC>=30% screen and safety/holder checks. Base failure cancels; no automatic buy.
D63/100
Watched CYBERLEEK (+3.3% since): a fair candidate to study.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
WATCH CYBERLEEK: recovery candidate after expansion, not a confirmed entry. DEX 22:34 UTC: ~$0.00529, h1 +9.0%, h6 -11.52%, h24 +157%; $1.1M pool/$3.8M MC (~29% rounded), h1 volume $155k, buy/sell $90k/$65k, 512 traders, age 1mo26d. 15m chart rebounds from ~0.0046 but remains below ~0.0062 range highs. Dollar flow supports study; +157% day and lower highs warn against chasing. Earlier search snapshot disagreed; live browser supersedes it. Contract/holder concentration/social UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would buy if: At next check, require a pullback low held >=2h then reclaim/retest $0.00550 (observed 15m high); h1 buy dollars>sells, pool >=$1M, pool/MC>=30% screen (not safety proof). Stop below defended low; net>=2R after costs. Below ~$0.0046 cancels. No automatic buy.
D62/100
Watched CYBERLEEK (+0.4% since): a fair candidate to study.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
REJECT PPAD: Exhausted; possible Distribution (inference). Desk 18:39 UTC: $0.000118, h1 -25.6%, h24 +161%, $30k pool, 321 buys/265 sells. Since 18:38, quote fell 5.6% from $0.000125; the hourly decline deepened from -20.4%. Buy-heavy counts with falling price flag volume quality, not proven manipulation. No defended base, structural stop or net 2R entry is evidenced; a bounce remains possible. Small pool adds exit risk, not proven illiquidity. MC/volume/age unverified here; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after price holds above $0.000125 for >=2h (observed quote, not proven resistance), with h1>0 and buys>sells. Verify volume quality, pool/MC>=30% screen (not safety proof), defended low, stop below it and net>=2R after costs. A new low cancels; no automatic buy.
D+68/100
Rejected PPAD (-23.1% since): dodged it.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
REJECT Altai: Too extended. Desk 14:37 UTC: $0.000140, h1/h24 +206%, pool $35k, 5841 buys/5433 sells (1.08x). Inference: rapid expansion; age unverified. A >3x hourly move without an observed base, defended stop or net 2R entry is a chase; momentum may persist. Counts are not dollar demand. MC/volume/age unverified in visible desk; pool/MC cannot be computed, holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Missing data blocks buy validation; $35k alone does not prove illiquidity. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a recorded pullback low holds >=2h, then reclaim its recorded base high with 0<h1<20% and buys>sells. New low cancels. Verify quality volume and pool/MC>=30% screen (unverified, not safety proof), stop below defended low and net>=2R after costs. No automatic buy.
F32/100See me
Rejected Altai (+1009.8% since): it ran anyway.
Next time
Process was fine; outcomes vary. Keep size small and stick to the plan.
REJECT Jef: Too extended. Desk 10:37 UTC: $0.000137, h1/h24 +214%, pool $32k, 5066 buys/4045 sells. Quote fell 8.1% from $0.000149 and pool 5.9% from $34k during review: material instability, not rounding. Inference: rapid expansion with retracement; age unverified. No defended base, structural stop or net 2R entry evidenced. Momentum can resume; counts are not dollar demand. MC/volume/age unverified in visible table; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a recorded pullback low holds >=2h, then reclaim its recorded base high with 0<h1<20% and buys>sells. New low cancels. Verify volume quality and pool/MC>=30% screen (ratio unverified; not safety proof), stop below defended low and net>=2R after costs. No automatic buy.
F37/100
Rejected Jef (+101.0% since): it ran anyway.
Next time
Process was fine; outcomes vary. Keep size small and stick to the plan.
REJECT REELS: Too extended, with reversal risk. Desk 06:34 UTC: $0.000544, h1 +372%, h24 +1086%, pool $66k, 1507 buys/2669 sells. Since 06:33, quote fell 17.1% from $0.000656 and pool 8.3% from $72k: material instability, not rounding. Inference: rapid expansion with a sharp retracement; momentum may resume. Counts are not dollar flow. No defended base, structural stop or net 2R entry established. MC/volume/age unverified in visible desk; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a recorded pullback low holds >=2h, then reclaim its recorded base high with 0<h1<20% and buys>sells. New low cancels. Verify volume quality and pool/MC>=30% screen (ratio unverified; not safety proof), stop below defended low and net>=2R after costs. No automatic buy.
D+68/100
Rejected REELS (-24.5% since): dodged it.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
REJECT MogCat: Exhausted, possible Distribution. Desk 02:35 UTC: $0.0000982, h1 -27.5%, h24 +106%, $26k pool, 385 buys/195 sells. Falling price despite buy-heavy counts is a flow warning, not proven manipulation. No defended base or net 2R setup; a bounce remains possible. MC/volume/age not visible here; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a recorded low holds >=2h then reclaim its base high with h1>0 and buys>sells. Require verified pool/MC>=30% screen (not safety proof), quality volume, stop below defended low and net>=2R. New low cancels; no automatic buy.
D64/100
Rejected MogCat (-6.9% since): dodged it.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
REJECT MogCat: Too extended. Desk 22:36 UTC: $0.000100, h1 +92.3%, h24 +110%, pool $26k; 634 buys/299 sells (2.12x). Inference: rapid expansion; pair age unverified. Near-doubling in an hour without a documented base, structural stop or net 2R entry is a chase. Momentum may persist; counts are not dollar demand. Small pool adds exit risk, not proven illiquidity. MC/volume/age unverified in this table; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Quotes may move before submission. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a newly recorded pullback low holds >=2h, then reclaim its recorded base high with h1>0 and buys>sells. New low cancels. Verify volume quality and pool/MC>=30% screen (ratio unverified; not safety proof). Stop below defended low; net>=2R after fees/impact. No automatic buy.
D61/100
Rejected MogCat (+4.5% since): it ran anyway.
Next time
Process was fine; outcomes vary. Keep size small and stick to the plan.
REJECT open/acc: Exhausted; possible Distribution. Desk 18:41 UTC: $0.0000784, h1 -59.4%, h24 +70.0%, pool $26k, 1548 buys/751 sells (2.06x). A near-60% hourly collapse despite buy-heavy counts warns counts are not dollar demand. A bounce is possible, but no defended base, structural stop or net 2R entry is evidenced. Small pool adds exit risk, not proven illiquidity. MC/volume/age unverified in this visible table; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a newly recorded low holds >=2h, then reclaim the recorded base high with h1>0 (now -59.4%) and buys>sells. New low cancels. Verify volume quality and pool/MC>=30% screen (ratio unverified; not safety proof). Stop below defended low; net>=2R after fees/impact. No automatic buy.
D62/100
Rejected open/acc (-1.6% since): dodged it.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
REJECT vamp: Too extended, with reversal risk. Desk 14:41 UTC $0.000160, h1 +135%, h24 +249%, pool $38k, 1014 buys/846 sells (1.20x). At 14:40 it was $0.000179/$41k: price fell 10.6% and pool 7.3% during review. Inference: volatile Expansion with a sharp retracement. Momentum may resume, but no defended base, structural stop or net 2R entry is evidenced. Counts are not dollar flow. MC/volume/age unverified in this visible table; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a newly recorded pullback low holds >=2h, then reclaim the recorded base high with h1>0 and buys>sells. New low cancels. Verify volume quality and pool/MC>=30% screen (ratio unverified; not safety proof). Stop below defended low; net>=2R after fees/impact. No automatic buy.
F54/100
Rejected vamp (+30.2% since): it ran anyway.
Next time
Process was fine; outcomes vary. Keep size small and stick to the plan.
REJECT QI: Too extended; expansion remains a chase. Desk 10:41 UTC: $0.00139, h1 +62.9%, h24 +3030%, pool $113k; 2781 buys/2286 sells (1.22x). Strong momentum can persist, but no defended pullback low, structural stop or net 2R entry is evidenced. Counts are not dollar demand. MC/volume/age absent from this visible desk, so pool/MC and participation pace remain unverified; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Quotes may move before submission. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a pullback low holds >=2h, then reclaim the recorded base high with h1>0 and buys>sells. A new low cancels. Verify pool/MC>=30% screen (currently unverified, not safety proof) and volume quality. Stop below defended low; net>=2R after fees/impact. No automatic buy.
D65/100
Rejected QI (-11.2% since): dodged it.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
REJECT QI: Expansion, Too extended (+129% h1, +832% h24). Desk 06:40 UTC $0.000415, pool $58k, 3562 buys/2598 sells (1.37x). Momentum may persist, but more than doubling in an hour without an observed base, defended stop or net 2R setup makes entry a chase. Counts are not dollar demand; $58k pool adds exit risk, not proven illiquidity. MC/volume/age unverified in visible desk; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Fresh prices moved materially during review; snapshot may lag. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a pullback records a new low held >=2h, then reclaims the recorded base high. Maintain h1>0 and buys>sells. New low cancels. Verify pool/MC>=30% screen (ratio unverified; not safety proof) and volume quality. Stop below defended low; net>=2R after fees/impact. No automatic buy.
F48/100
Rejected QI (+55.8% since): it ran anyway.
Next time
Process was fine; outcomes vary. Keep size small and stick to the plan.
REJECT Pack: Exhausted, possible Distribution. Desk 02:41 UTC: $0.0000920, h1 -61.0%, h24 +93.2%, pool $30k, 892 buys/661 sells (1.35x). A >60% hourly collapse despite buy-heavy counts warns counts are not dollar demand. A bounce remains possible, but no defended base, structural stop or net 2R entry is evidenced. Small pool adds exit risk, not proven illiquidity. MC/volume/age unverified in visible desk; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a newly recorded low holds >=2h, then reclaim recorded base high with h1>0 (now -61.0%) and buys>sells. New low cancels. Verify pool/MC>=30% screen (ratio unverified; not safety proof) and volume/flow. Stop below defended low; net>=2R after fees/impact. No automatic buy.
D62/100
Rejected Pack (+1.3% since): it ran anyway.
Next time
Process was fine; outcomes vary. Keep size small and stick to the plan.
REJECT SharkTank: Exhausted, possible Distribution. Desk22:42UTC $0.000126,h1-33.9%,h24+162%,pool$36k,245 buys/172 sells(1.42x). Falling price despite buy-heavy counts warns counts are not dollar demand. A >1/3 hourly loss leaves no evidenced defended base, structural stop or net2R entry; a bounce remains possible. $36k pool adds exit risk, not proven illiquidity. MC,volume,age unverified here; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Size0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a new low holds >=2h, h1>0 (now-33.9%), then reclaim recorded base high. New low cancels. Verify pool/MC>=30% screen (ratio unverified; not safety proof), volume/flow. Stop below base, net>=2R after fees/impact. No automatic buy.
D65/100
Rejected SharkTank (-11.6% since): dodged it.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
REJECT RAFS: Too extended with sharp retracement. Desk 18:35 UTC: $0.000161, h1/h24 +268%, pool $34k, buys/sells 948/993. At 18:34: $0.000199, +354%, $37k; price fell 19.1% and pool 8.1% in ~2 min. No defended base or structural stop established. Momentum can resume, but no evidenced net 2R setup. Counts are not dollar flow. Visible desk omits MC/volume/age; pool/MC and participation pace not computable here. Holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Small pool adds exit risk, not proven illiquidity. Size 0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a new low holds >=2h, then reclaim recorded base high with h1>0 and buys>sells (now 948/993). Compute pool/MC; require >=30% screen, not safety proof. Stop below defended low; net >=2R after fees/impact. New low cancels; no automatic buy.
C75/100
Rejected RAFS (-50.3% since): dodged it.
Next time
Good process. Repeat it, and plan your exit before the move reverses.
REJECT Mario64: Expansion, Too extended. Desk14:44UTC $0.000203,h1/h24+337%,pool$40k,5212 buys/4171 sells(1.25x). Momentum may continue, but a >4x move without a documented base, structural stop or net2R setup is a poor entry. Counts are not net dollar demand. Thin dollar depth adds exit risk, not proof of unusability at small size. Holders/contract/social UNKNOWN. MC/volume/age are not displayed in this desk table; no off-feed figures in this case. Size0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a pullback records a new low held >=2h, then reclaims that base high. Maintain h1>0, buys>sells; require pool>=30% of MC. New low cancels. Map stop below low and net>=2R after fees/impact. The 30% gate is a screen, not safety proof. No automatic buy.
D64/100
Sound 'Too extended' REJECT of a 0.4h-old +337% launch, but it again ignored feed MC and age and left the pool/MC failure unnamed.
✗It claimed MC, volume and age were 'not displayed' even though the feed shows MC $203k, volume $529k and age 0.4h, which repeats the lesson to compute ratios from the feed rather than treat them as unavailable.
✗It failed to name the second proven no-buy item: the pool is only 19.5% of MC (under the 30% gate), so the reason should read 'Too extended + Illiquid', and the gate should say 'pool ≥30% of MC (now 19.5%)'.
✗It mislabeled the state as Expansion when a 0.4h-old pair with no history is a New Launch, which also supports 'insufficient data' as a co-reason.
Next time
Before writing any REJECT, read MC, volume and pair age from the feed and compute pool/MC yourself. Lead with every proven no-buy item, e.g. 'Too extended (+337% h1) + Illiquid (pool 19.5% of MC)', and write 'now X%' into the pool gate.
REJECT swordinu: Exhaustion/Distribution. Desk10:38UTC $0.00304, h1-57.0%, h24-54.4%, 4337 buys/2172 sells: buy-heavy counts with collapsing price are a flow-quality warning, not demand or proven manipulation. External DEX10:37: h1vol$553k, buys$254k<sells$298k; pool$175k/MC$3.0m~5.8%, age40h. Active selling, not absent participation. M5+4.09% allows a bounce; no defended base. External metrics unconfirmed by desk; holder/contract/social UNKNOWN. Size0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after a newly recorded low holds unbroken >=2h, with h1>0 and buys>sells. Require pool>=30% of MC (now~5.8% external; desk ratio UNKNOWN), a screening rule, not safety proof. Record low and rebound high; stop below low and net>=2R after fees/impact. New low cancels; no automatic buy.
C+78/100
Sound REJECT of a token down 57% in an hour, with observable gates; illiquidity should have been a named co-reason, not a footnote.
✗Pool/MC at 5.7% ($175k/$3.06M) is a hard illiquidity failure the feed proves, yet it was left out of no_buy_reason, which repeats the 'imprecise primary reason' lesson of naming only one of two proven failures.
✗It labeled the desk pool/MC ratio UNKNOWN even though liquidity and market cap are both in the feed and give ~5.7%, while it leaned on off-feed external buy/sell dollar volume as supporting evidence.
✗It never compared h1 volume ($541k) to the 24h hourly average (~$385k), which would have shown elevated volume during the dump and quantified active distribution.
Next time
When two no-buy items are proven, name both: 'Exhausted (-57% h1) + Illiquid (pool 5.7% of MC)'. Compute ratios from the feed yourself rather than calling them UNKNOWN, and keep external, off-feed numbers out of the core case.
REJECT swordinu: Distribution. Feed06:34:55UTC $0.007062, h1-64.89%, m5-18.06%, h24+114%, age36h. 7584 buys/3001 sells while price collapses is a conflicting-flow warning; counts are not dollar demand. Pool$264099/MC$7.015m=3.8% adds exit-depth risk. H1vol$712143 is 2.04x h24 hourly average and 2.70x pool: active selling/churn, not weak participation. Strong turnover can fuel a bounce but no defended base/2R setup is shown. Holder/contract/social UNKNOWN, not assumed safe. Size0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Reassess after $0.0202 held >=2h (rounded feed-implied h1 open $0.007062/0.3511, not proven resistance); pool >=30% of MC (now3.8%); m5,h1>0, buys>sells, h1vol>=h24/24. Then map defended low, stop below it and net>=2R. New low cancels; no automatic buy.
B86/100
Sound REJECT of a 36h token dumping 65% in an hour on a thin 3.8% pool/MC; feed-grounded, prior lessons applied, gates slightly impractical.
✗The headline no-buy reason is 'Conflicting signals', but the data supports stronger, more specific failures: illiquid (pool only 3.8% of MC) and exhausted/distribution after a +114% day and a -65% hour.
✗The reassessment gate needs price to reclaim $0.0202, about +186% from here, which amounts to waiting for a new pump; a nearer gate such as a defended base held for hours with buys>sells on a positive h1 would be more actionable.
✗The 'h1vol>=h24/24' gate is already satisfied at 2.04x, so it filters nothing; a gate should name a change you are waiting for, not a condition that already holds.
Next time
Lead a REJECT with the strongest no-buy item the data proves (illiquid at 3.8% pool/MC, exhausted after a -65% hour). Make every reassessment gate something not yet true, reachable, and observable in the feed, such as a defended low held 2h with h1 up and buys>sells.
REJECT PAID: Distribution/Exhaustion. Feed02:39:29UTC $0.004895 breaks old WATCH kill $0.0050; old retest/target invalid. H1 -2.01%, h24 -18.57%, sells/buys72/39; h1 vol $8197 vs h24/24 $49299 (0.17x), a participation collapse. Pool $490718/MC $4607553=10.7%, below 30% gate. M5 +0.12% and substantial dollar pool argue for a bounce, but don't restore broken setup. Counts aren't dollar flow. Holders/contract/social UNKNOWN. New support/target unconfirmed. Snapshot may change. Size0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Old WATCH canceled. Reassess after $0.00535 reclaim held >=2h, no print <$0.0050; pool >=30% of MC (now 10.7%), h1 price>0, buys>sells, h1 vol >=$50k. $0.00535 is a screen, not proven resistance. New stop below defended low; fresh target net>=2R, risk<=1%; resolve holder/contract UNKNOWNs.
B84/100
Sound REJECT: a broken WATCH level, 72/39 sell-heavy counts, h1 volume at 0.17x average and pool/MC of 10.7% support the call.
✗The reassessment trigger includes 'resolve holder/contract UNKNOWNs', which the feed can never satisfy, so the gate cannot be met; state it as an accepted unknown risk instead.
✗On a 535-hour-old pair with an h1 volume collapse, 'insufficient participation/fading' is arguably the truer label than 'Exhausted', and the Dot did not name it as a co-reason.
Next time
Keep every reassessment gate observable in the feed: price level, hold time, pool/MC %, h1 volume vs 24h hourly average, buys>sells with h1 price up. Never make a gate depend on data the feed cannot provide; list those as accepted UNKNOWN risk.
WATCH PAID, consolidation after expansion, not entry. Feed02:34:58UTC $0.005904, h1+2.65%, $104k volume vs $87k 24h/hour, 292/271 counts; pool$540k/MC$5.56m=9.7%. External15m02:34 floor~$0.0051 held across several hours, high$0.006482; current reward to high<1R with $0.0049 stop. Study lower retest, do not tighten stop. Broad weakness: CARDS h1-11.21%, STONK-4.37%. Desk holder/contract/social UNKNOWN; external holder counts disagree and 2 unverified pool reports need review. Cancel below$0.0050. Size0 now.
Would buy if: New $0.00515-0.00535 retest held >=2h, no low below $0.0050; stop $0.0049, target $0.006482, net>=2R at entry<=0.00535. Cancel below $0.0050. Resolve holder/LP/report discrepancies; refresh risk checks. <=0.20SOL, impact<=0.1%/side, risk<=1%. No automatic buy.
F56/100
Sound consolidation WATCH with a precise retest trigger, but it again drops the pool ≥30% of MC gate despite computing 9.7%.
✗It computed pool/MC at 9.7% but left 'pool ≥30% of MC' out of the trigger, the same mistake flagged in at least three recent lessons.
✗The trigger has no buy/sell flow gate, even though h1 counts (292/271) are nearly balanced and m5 is negative; it needs a condition such as buys > sells with h1 price positive on the retest.
✗The floor and high come from an external 15m chart and external holder counts, which are not labeled as unconfirmed, so the trigger rests on levels the feed cannot verify.
Next time
Before submitting any WATCH, check that the trigger literally contains 'pool ≥30% of MC (now X%)' and a numeric flow gate such as buys > sells with h1 price positive. Label any off-feed chart level as unconfirmed and restate it as a feed-observable price.
REJECT Human: old WATCH invalidated. External Gecko15m06:40 reports low$0.0006266 at06:21UTC, below$0.00065 kill level; rebound does not restore setup. API06:41:26 $0.0007917,h1-14.38%,m5-1.8%,pool$116054/MC15.1%; below$120k gate. H1vol$95.6k vs24h/24$144.8k. State: decline with rebound, exhaustion risk. Public Gecko says mint/freeze NO, lock Yes,6806 holders; not full audit. Pool reserves imply ~0.04% constant-product impact for0.2SOL, not executable quote. External levels unconfirmed by desk. Size0; stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Old WATCH canceled. New setup only: low defended >=2h, reclaim/retest $0.00090 with h1 volume >=$150k, pool >=$120k at two checks. Stop below new low; net>=2R, risk<=1%, impact<=0.1%/side at <=0.20SOL. Recheck holder/contract risks. Below new low invalidates; no automatic reentry.
D66/100
Sound REJECT on a broken WATCH, but the reassessment gate again drops the pool-to-MC ratio and ignores the buys-over-sells anomaly.
✗The reassessment gate uses an absolute pool of ≥$120k even though the Dot itself computed pool/MC at 15.1%; that is the third time it has dropped the required 'pool ≥30% of MC' gate.
✗The feed shows 435 buys vs 379 sells during a 14.4% h1 drop, a flow anomaly the Dot left unnamed despite a prior lesson to turn exactly this into a numbered co-reason.
✗It leans on off-feed holder and contract data (mint/freeze, lock, 6806 holders) as partial comfort instead of treating it as UNKNOWN for the desk.
Next time
Write 'pool ≥30% of MC (now 15.1%)' into every gate, never an absolute dollar pool. When buys exceed sells while price falls, name it as a co-reason with numbers and add a flow gate, e.g. price up on the hour with buys > sells.
WATCH Human recovery, not buy. API10:39:42UTC $0.001074,h1+26.98%,m5+2.35%,age14h,pool$130523/MC$1.04M(12.5%). External Gecko15m10:38 shows hours of base ~$0.00065-0.001, then rebound; levels unconfirmed by desk. Current entry to ~$0.00170 with stop$0.00060 is only1.32R gross. Study cheaper retest, do not shrink stop. Pool/MC below teacher30% preference; small-size impact gate used, depth still uncertain. 537/537 counts not dollar flow. Full holder/contract/social diligence incomplete. Size0; watch invalid below$0.00065.
Would buy if: Study pullback $0.00085-0.00090 held >=2h; entry <=$0.00090, stop $0.00060 below observed ~$0.00065 base, target ~$0.00170: net>=2R required. Below$0.00065 cancels watch. Size<=0.20SOL; pool>=$120k at two checks, impact<=0.1%/side. Verify token risks and feeds; no automatic buy.
C-70/100
Disciplined WATCH with honest R:R math and a clear kill level, but it drops the pool/MC gate again and misses a volume collapse.
✗The liquidity gate uses an absolute pool of >=$120k (~11.5% of MC) instead of the pool >= 30% of MC your lessons require in every reassessment gate, which repeats the 'dropping pool/MC gate' mistake.
✗Hourly volume of $116k against a 24h average of ~$856k/h is an ~86% drop in participation after a +2052% day, and this exhaustion signal was not named as a co-reason.
✗The 537/537 flat flow was noted but never turned into a numeric flow gate, such as h1 buys exceeding sells by a set margin on the retest.
Next time
Every WATCH trigger must carry pool >= 30% of MC as a number, not an absolute dollar pool. After a parabolic day, compare h1 volume to the 24h hourly average and name any collapse as an exhaustion co-reason with a volume-recovery gate.
REJECT Human: exhaustion after launch spike. API22:39:18UTC $0.0005117, h1-34.12%, m5-0.05%, age2h; Gecko22:39 ~$0.0004277/m5-13.18%: stale/conflicting snapshots block entry. External15m chart fell from $0.00223 high to ~$0.00044; levels unconfirmed by desk, no defended base. Pool$73,829 vs h1 volume$2.61M (~35x), 14.8% of MC: fragile exits, not proof of manipulation. 13312/11833 buy/sell counts are not dollar flow. Holder/contract/social diligence incomplete. Wait for defended structure and net2R; size0, stop N/A.
Would change my mind: Require a newly observed low held >=2h, then reclaim/retest of $0.00102 (external candle high, unconfirmed by desk). Stop below defended low; net>=2R after fees. For <=0.25SOL size require impact<=0.1% each way and stable pool>=current $70k at two checks. New low cancels; no automatic buy.
C+78/100
Sound REJECT: the exhaustion label is backed by a -38% h1 drop after a +796% launch spike, but the reassessment gates drop the pool/MC check.
✗The reassessment gate uses 'pool >= $70k' instead of the pool/market-cap ratio your lessons demand: pool is 15.9% of MC against a 30% bar, and that should be a numeric gate.
✗The anomaly of 13,420 buys vs 11,949 sells while price fell 38% (many small buys absorbed by large sells, which reads as distribution) was waved off as 'not dollar flow' instead of being named as a co-reason with a numeric flow gate.
✗The reclaim trigger at $0.00102 rests on an unconfirmed external candle, so the main buy condition depends on a level the desk cannot verify; anchor it to a feed-observable level instead.
Next time
Every reassessment gate must carry pool >= 30% of MC (now ~16%). Turn feed anomalies like more buys during a 38% drop into a named co-reason with a number, e.g. h1 price change positive with buys > sells. Anchor reclaim triggers to feed-observable prices.
REJECT$MISTAKEat $0.0216Poor reward for the risknow -86.8%
REJECT MISTAKE: poor reward/risk in volatile expansion/pullback. API06:36:20UTC $0.02015, m5+5.46%, h1+37.27%, h24+407%, pool$488k, h1vol$2.37M (~4.9x pool), age556h. External Gecko15m06:35 high$0.02334, fresh wick$0.01684 (unconfirmed by desk). Even stop at wick risks16.4% for15.8% reward (<1R before fees); an honest buffered stop is worse. Wick not yet defended2h. Price rose12.7% from API06:34, so snapshot uncertainty matters. Counts2987/2511 are not dollar flow. Full holder/contract/social diligence UNKNOWN. No position; size0.
Would change my mind: Gecko15m: low defended >=2h, then structure/volatility stop first and net >=2R to $0.02334 after fees/impact. Break $0.01684 cancels this base; map a new one. Check impact <=0.1% each way for <=0.5 SOL and pool/MC (now2.5%); no automatic buy on high break.
C-70/100
A sound REJECT on honest R:R math, but it again softened a large feed mismatch and left the pool/MC gate without a threshold.
✗Your snapshot (h1 +37%, m5 +5.5%, $0.02015) conflicted sharply with the feed (h1 +66%, m5 +17.6%, $0.02164), yet you wrote only 'snapshot uncertainty matters' instead of naming 'stale/conflicting data' as an explicit co-reason, repeating a recent lesson.
✗The pool/MC check (2.4%, about $505k against a $20.8M MC) appears in the gate without a pass threshold and is not named as a co-reason, even though that thin a pool is a real liquidity/exitability concern.
✗With h24 +435% and h1 +66%, 'too extended' was a supported no-buy co-reason you left out, and the 'pullback' label doesn't fit a feed showing m5 +17.6%.
Next time
When your refresh and the feed differ by 20+ points in momentum, write 'stale/conflicting data' as a co-reason, no hedging. Give every gate a number: pool >=30% of MC (now 2.4%), a defended low held 2h, and net >=2R from the feed price.
REJECT$CATEat $0.0719Poor reward for the risknow -76.9%
REJECT CATE: poor reward/risk at current entry. API14:36:57UTC $0.07190, h1+3.3%, m5+0.11%, pool$3.22M. External Gecko15m14:36 shows expansion from ~$0.066-$0.068 then initial pullback from verified $0.07349 high. State: expansion/pullback, not proven distribution. Stop below pre-expansion base (~$0.0655 planned) risks8.9% vs2.21% to observed high, <0.25R before fees. No defended higher low yet; never tighten stop to force2R. 221 buys/471 sells are counts, not dollar flow. Full holders/contract/social diligence UNKNOWN. Size0; no active stop.
Would change my mind: Reassess after Gecko15m shows a pullback swing low defended >=2h. Set invalidation below that observed low FIRST; require net R:R>=2 to observed resistance after fees, impact<=0.1% each way for <=0.5 SOL. If $0.07349 breaks, require a retest and newly observed target, not an invented one.
B-80/100
Sound REJECT on honest R:R math: a real-volatility stop gives about 0.25R to the observed high, with checkable numeric re-entry gates.
✗It leaned on an 'External Gecko15m' high of $0.07349 and called it 'verified', but that level is not in the judged feed; it should have been flagged as outside, unconfirmed evidence.
✗It noted that 471 sells vs 221 buys are only counts, but never named sells outnumbering buys 2:1 while price rose 3.3% as a conflicting-signal co-reason or added a flow gate for it.
✗It dropped the liquidity gate from earlier lessons: the pool is only about 4.6% of the $69M market cap, and no pool/market-cap threshold or reasoning appears in the reassessment criteria.
Next time
When you cite chart levels from outside the feed, label them unconfirmed. Turn feed anomalies such as 2:1 sell counts against rising price into a named co-reason with a numeric flow gate. Keep a pool/market-cap check in every reassessment gate.
