{
  "runId": "astra6-2",
  "model": "Astra 6",
  "abstain": false,
  "primaryIndex": 0,
  "candidates": [
    {
      "script": "strategy \"Astra6 S2 SMA240 trend\" version 1.0\nasset: BTC\ntimeframe: 4h\ncapital: 10000\n\nentry:\n    condition: price > SMA(240)\n    size: 100%\n\nexit:\n    signal_exit: on_entry_failure\n",
      "params": {
        "smaLength": 240,
        "sizePct": 100
      },
      "label": "exploratory",
      "researchEvidence": "Only BTC 4h research dataset ohlcv-sha256-9f8ce49cc04885b6; Rust CPU, 10 bps/side, legacy close fills. Exact frozen script SHA256 3015e5b73fd4ec04e1e70b129813de26501738eca6664acdc608967de1512638. Train bars 0-4598: +256.48%, max DD 32.71%, 39 trades. Earlier nested split: bars 0-3219 +282.72%/30.31% DD; bars 3220-4598 -7.66%/22.25% DD versus buy-and-hold -54.93%. Train subperiods 0-2195 +246.30%/30.31% DD; 2196-4598 -23.77%/29.88% DD. Six SMA lengths 180,210,240,270,300,360 all positive on full training: +133.51% to +256.48%; adjacent 210/270 returned +196.09%/+209.00%. Parameters and exploratory label frozen before final bars 4599-6569 were revealed. That exact-script cold-start holdout returned +30.05%, DD 19.99%, 30 trades versus buy-and-hold +59.61%, DD 21.19%, so it underperformed on return/DD. A subsequent one-configuration sweep added fixed parameter metadata only and retained training indicator history: same rule, same holdout +17.84%, DD 19.99%, 32 trades versus aligned buy-and-hold +26.68%; this is a sensitivity check, not independent validation. Exact frozen script on all 6570 bars: +320.63%, DD 37.76%, 70 trades versus buy-and-hold +136.43%, DD 77.04%. Full-tape checks: 20 bps/side +265.68%, DD 41.04%; indicator-lookback warmup +320.45%, DD 37.76%; next-open fills +320.49%, DD 37.75%. All subperiods using standalone backtests reset positions and indicator history and are not additive."
    }
  ],
  "reasoning": "Compared 26 distinct configurations across dual-SMA trend, price-SMA trend and trend-filtered RSI dip families using only the first 70% of the permitted research tape. The initial 23 configurations used a nested chronological 30% validation split; three additional SMA neighbours and training subperiod checks assessed a plateau. Selected the one-parameter SMA240 long/cash rule for training return/drawdown, neighbouring profitability and simpler warmup behaviour. Primary, literal script and exploratory label were frozen after call 14; no executable rules changed after seeing the final 30%. The history-retaining holdout check exposes the more favourable cold-start result, and neither demonstrates benchmark superiority. Bear-period losses, low win rate, reliance on a few large trends, one asset/cycle and multiple comparisons prevent a robust claim. Submit one exploratory candidate rather than imply future profitability. All computation used the sealed helper and CPU reference; no other dataset, participant results or sealed evaluation data were accessed. 26 helper invocations including discovery and one repeated schema discovery after a local output-capture error; zero helper refusals.",
  "toolCallsUsed": 26
}