Alpha Futures — Verification Record

This is the complete, dated record of every independent verification pass this corpus has run against Alpha Futures's own published rules, beyond the initial read: what was checked, what the check found, what changed, and what was preserved for the record even where two readings disagreed. See how a number gets checked twice for the method behind every entry below.

• 2026-08-12 Confirmed, no changes

  Live primary source recheck

  Field-by-field: 7 noted (7 fields touched this pass).

  Live primary-source recheck 2026-08-12: 13 fields confirmed against Alpha Help Center; MLL evaluation_frequency stays conservative-intraday and is now live-supported ("break MLL at any point, floating equity") — disagree->sourced available.

  Sources consulted: https://help.alpha-futures.com/en/articles/15838742, https://help.alpha-futures.com/en/articles/9491999, https://help.alpha-futures.com/en/articles/9492014, https://help.alpha-futures.com/en/articles/9492048 — checked 2026-08-12
• 2026-07-31 Confirmed, items preserved for the record

  Two independent readers, each working blind to the other’s output and to the stored value

  Field-by-field: 13 confirmed · 1 preserved for the record (14 fields touched this pass).

  Two independent blind readers sourced Alpha Futures' DIRECT product (instant-funded — skips the Evaluation stage entirely, starts the trader directly on a funded/Qualified account) across all 4 covered sizes ($25K/$50K/$100K/$150K). CONFIRMED, all sizes: no pass/fail evaluation (hence min_trading_days=0 and no profit_target_pct/_abs — see that field's own reasoning for why this is agreement on substance, not a value conflict, and why it is left null rather than repurposed); Daily Loss Guard 2% of starting balance, fixed per size ($500/$1,000/$2,000/$3,000), soft breach (flattens + locks out until the next trading day, account NOT closed), counting unrealized P&L; Maximum Loss Limit (MLL) EOD-trailing off the end-of-day balance high (never an intraday high), non-proportional across sizes like Alpha's own Zero product (4%/4%/3%/3% = $1,000/$2,000/$3,000/$4,500), locking at the account's initial starting balance once reached, testing floating equity for breach; 20% Consistency Rule ('biggest day/total net profit since last request = 20%') gating each withdrawal request (not an evaluation pass — Direct has none), alongside a recurring Withdrawal Profit Target that RESETS after every withdrawal (1st $1,500/2nd+ $1,000 at 25K, scaling proportionally at the other 3 sizes — documented in phases[0].profit_target_pct's own reasoning, not modelled as a one-time pass/fail number); one-time per-size fee ($349/$519/$689/$859), no subscription; 90% profit split. GENUINE DISAGREEMENT (entered as ambiguities[], all 4 sizes): phases[0].max_drawdown.evaluation_frequency — reader A's material never addresses whether a breach is tested only at the EOD snapshot or continuously through the day; reader B supplies an explicit firm-wide quote naming continuous testing ('If you break MLL at any point, floating equity or closed balance of account, your account will be liquidated' — general MLL article, states it applies 'on all of our accounts'). This is a coverage gap in reader A's research, not a first-party statement contradicting reader B, so the conservative reading (intraday, the direction that never under-counts a breach) is carried as the headline value while both candidates are logged. FLAGGED, NOT ACTIONED (out of this task's scope, rules/alpha-futures-direct/ only): the SAME firm-wide MLL article underlies rules/alpha-zero/*.json and rules/alpha-advanced/*.json, both of which currently set evaluation_frequency='eod' via this corpus's generic derive-from-basis rule rather than independent sourcing — this Direct-driven finding is a candidate for a targeted recheck of those two sibling files. TWO SCHEMA-FIT LIMITATIONS DOCUMENTED, NOT MODELLED: (1) profit_target — see above; (2) consistency.enforced_at='pass' is the nearest enum value for what is actually a per-withdrawal-request gate (this schema has no 'per_withdrawal_request' value) — see phases[0].consistency's own reasoning, which also flags that tools/build-firm-presets.js's consistencyPct() wires effect='block' firms into the live simulator keyed to a 'pass' event, a potential incoherence with profit_target_pct=null that this corpus-only write surfaces but does not resolve. PRICING: list price entered ($349/$519/$689/$859, both readers corroborate); a reader-B-only 'launch offer' 35%-off promo code (DIRECT35) was NOT entered, matching this corpus's own rules/apex-eod/*.json precedent of withholding an unconfirmed-live promo price in favor of the stable list price. Golden vectors (rules/alpha-futures-direct/golden/) hand-recombine Direct's own $25,000/$1,000-MLL worked example and per-size Daily Loss Guard/MLL numbers with the firm-wide MLL trailing formula (itself explicitly quoted, not invented) into a non-breach floor-trail day and a 4-day breach walkthrough, following the same 'firm's own sourced mechanics, not a firm-narrated day-by-day walkthrough' pattern this corpus already uses for rules/goat-funded-trader/golden/static-drawdown-breach-100k.json; both vectors verified to reconcile exactly against tests/rules-reconciliation.test.js before this write.

  Sources consulted: https://help.alpha-futures.com/en/articles/15838742-direct-account-overview, https://help.alpha-futures.com/en/articles/9492014-daily-loss-guard, https://help.alpha-futures.com/en/articles/9491999-maximum-loss-limit-mll, https://help.alpha-futures.com/en/articles/9492048-consistency-rule, https://alpha-futures.com/resources/eod-trailing-drawdown-vs-intraday-drawdown-2026 — checked 2026-07-31

Rules and their verification status change without notice; the firm's own documentation is always the final authority. This page is independent research, not investment or trading advice, and PropSurvival is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Alpha Futures.