Skip to content
PropSurvival
Run your analysisRun analysis — free
Menu
Verification Record

FXIFY — Verification Record

Latest recorded check: · 8 recorded checks

Two Phase · Our recorded checks and their evidence. A corpus correction does not establish when a firm changed its rules.

Confirmed unchanged

looked · found

Inspect the evidence or run your numbers

Run FXIFY in the simulator — free

Dated source-check records

  • Confirmed, no changes

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

    USD 25,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

    Field-by-field: 13 confirmed (13 fields touched this pass).

    CONFIRMED by both blind passes for $25k, every material field, once wording/citation-source variations are set aside: 10% Phase-1 / 5% Phase-2 profit targets; 4% daily loss recalculated off the prior day's 5PM EST end-of-day balance, tested against live equity, on-breach = full account invalidation + forfeited fee; 10% trailing max drawdown whose high-water mark ratchets on the CLOSED trading balance (not intraday peaks) but whose breach test is itself checked against live equity (both readers independently cited a cross-product FAQ for this second fact), locking at the starting balance once 10% profit is reached (and, per a directly-applicable FAQ, also locking on any withdrawal request — recorded as a documented_omission, inert during the evaluation phase this file scores); min 5 trading days per phase; and NO consistency rule on Standard (structural absence, contrasted against the sibling Classic/Lightning variants on the same page which do carry one). The two readers' reports disagreed only in WORDING or in WHICH first-party page they chose to cite for the same fact (e.g. daily_loss_url; the profit-target/daily-loss/max-drawdown row quotes; the trailing anchor described as "starting/initial balance" — recorded per corpus convention as "highest_water_mark" since type=trailing, with the lock point itself at the initial balance) — none of these were entered as ambiguities[] because no two candidate VALUES were ever actually in tension. pricing.initial_fee was supplied by only one of the two blind readers (not independently corroborated) — flagged in its own provenance entry, not counted as a two-pass field here since pricing is not a MATERIAL_FIELD.

    consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss includes unrealized: confirmed daily loss on breach: confirmed max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown includes unrealized: confirmed max drawdown locks: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed

    No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

    Sources recorded for this check:
    https://fxify.com/programs/two-phase/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-you-calculate-the-daily-loss-limit/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/if-i-breach-the-rules-what-happens-next/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-withdrawals-affect-drawdown-on-1-and-2-phase-accounts/
    Link to this check
  • Confirmed, no changes

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

    USD 15,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

    Field-by-field: 13 confirmed (13 fields touched this pass).

    CONFIRMED by both blind passes for $15k, every material field, once wording/citation-source variations are set aside: 10% Phase-1 / 5% Phase-2 profit targets; 4% daily loss recalculated off the prior day's 5PM EST end-of-day balance, tested against live equity, on-breach = full account invalidation + forfeited fee; 10% trailing max drawdown whose high-water mark ratchets on the CLOSED trading balance (not intraday peaks) but whose breach test is itself checked against live equity (both readers independently cited a cross-product FAQ for this second fact), locking at the starting balance once 10% profit is reached (and, per a directly-applicable FAQ, also locking on any withdrawal request — recorded as a documented_omission, inert during the evaluation phase this file scores); min 5 trading days per phase; and NO consistency rule on Standard (structural absence, contrasted against the sibling Classic/Lightning variants on the same page which do carry one). The two readers' reports disagreed only in WORDING or in WHICH first-party page they chose to cite for the same fact (e.g. daily_loss_url; the profit-target/daily-loss/max-drawdown row quotes; the trailing anchor described as "starting/initial balance" — recorded per corpus convention as "highest_water_mark" since type=trailing, with the lock point itself at the initial balance) — none of these were entered as ambiguities[] because no two candidate VALUES were ever actually in tension. pricing.initial_fee was supplied by only one of the two blind readers (not independently corroborated) — flagged in its own provenance entry, not counted as a two-pass field here since pricing is not a MATERIAL_FIELD.

    consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss includes unrealized: confirmed daily loss on breach: confirmed max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown includes unrealized: confirmed max drawdown locks: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed

    No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

    Sources recorded for this check:
    https://fxify.com/programs/two-phase/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-you-calculate-the-daily-loss-limit/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/if-i-breach-the-rules-what-happens-next/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-withdrawals-affect-drawdown-on-1-and-2-phase-accounts/
    Link to this check
  • Confirmed, no changes

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

    USD 50,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

    Field-by-field: 13 confirmed (13 fields touched this pass).

    CONFIRMED by both blind passes for $50k, every material field, once wording/citation-source variations are set aside: 10% Phase-1 / 5% Phase-2 profit targets; 4% daily loss recalculated off the prior day's 5PM EST end-of-day balance, tested against live equity, on-breach = full account invalidation + forfeited fee; 10% trailing max drawdown whose high-water mark ratchets on the CLOSED trading balance (not intraday peaks) but whose breach test is itself checked against live equity (both readers independently cited a cross-product FAQ for this second fact), locking at the starting balance once 10% profit is reached (and, per a directly-applicable FAQ, also locking on any withdrawal request — recorded as a documented_omission, inert during the evaluation phase this file scores); min 5 trading days per phase; and NO consistency rule on Standard (structural absence, contrasted against the sibling Classic/Lightning variants on the same page which do carry one). The two readers' reports disagreed only in WORDING or in WHICH first-party page they chose to cite for the same fact (e.g. daily_loss_url; the profit-target/daily-loss/max-drawdown row quotes; the trailing anchor described as "starting/initial balance" — recorded per corpus convention as "highest_water_mark" since type=trailing, with the lock point itself at the initial balance) — none of these were entered as ambiguities[] because no two candidate VALUES were ever actually in tension. pricing.initial_fee was supplied by only one of the two blind readers (not independently corroborated) — flagged in its own provenance entry, not counted as a two-pass field here since pricing is not a MATERIAL_FIELD.

    consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss includes unrealized: confirmed daily loss on breach: confirmed max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown includes unrealized: confirmed max drawdown locks: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed

    No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

    Sources recorded for this check:
    https://fxify.com/programs/two-phase/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-you-calculate-the-daily-loss-limit/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/if-i-breach-the-rules-what-happens-next/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-withdrawals-affect-drawdown-on-1-and-2-phase-accounts/
    Link to this check
  • Confirmed, no changes

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

    USD 400,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

    Field-by-field: 13 confirmed (13 fields touched this pass).

    CONFIRMED by both blind passes for $400k, every material field, once wording/citation-source variations are set aside: 10% Phase-1 / 5% Phase-2 profit targets; 4% daily loss recalculated off the prior day's 5PM EST end-of-day balance, tested against live equity, on-breach = full account invalidation + forfeited fee; 10% trailing max drawdown whose high-water mark ratchets on the CLOSED trading balance (not intraday peaks) but whose breach test is itself checked against live equity (both readers independently cited a cross-product FAQ for this second fact), locking at the starting balance once 10% profit is reached (and, per a directly-applicable FAQ, also locking on any withdrawal request — recorded as a documented_omission, inert during the evaluation phase this file scores); min 5 trading days per phase; and NO consistency rule on Standard (structural absence, contrasted against the sibling Classic/Lightning variants on the same page which do carry one). The two readers' reports disagreed only in WORDING or in WHICH first-party page they chose to cite for the same fact (e.g. daily_loss_url; the profit-target/daily-loss/max-drawdown row quotes; the trailing anchor described as "starting/initial balance" — recorded per corpus convention as "highest_water_mark" since type=trailing, with the lock point itself at the initial balance) — none of these were entered as ambiguities[] because no two candidate VALUES were ever actually in tension. pricing.initial_fee was supplied by only one of the two blind readers (not independently corroborated) — flagged in its own provenance entry, not counted as a two-pass field here since pricing is not a MATERIAL_FIELD.

    consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss includes unrealized: confirmed daily loss on breach: confirmed max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown includes unrealized: confirmed max drawdown locks: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed

    No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

    Sources recorded for this check:
    https://fxify.com/programs/two-phase/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-you-calculate-the-daily-loss-limit/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/if-i-breach-the-rules-what-happens-next/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-withdrawals-affect-drawdown-on-1-and-2-phase-accounts/
    Link to this check
  • Confirmed, no changes

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

    USD 200,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

    Field-by-field: 13 confirmed (13 fields touched this pass).

    CONFIRMED by both blind passes for $200k, every material field, once wording/citation-source variations are set aside: 10% Phase-1 / 5% Phase-2 profit targets; 4% daily loss recalculated off the prior day's 5PM EST end-of-day balance, tested against live equity, on-breach = full account invalidation + forfeited fee; 10% trailing max drawdown whose high-water mark ratchets on the CLOSED trading balance (not intraday peaks) but whose breach test is itself checked against live equity (both readers independently cited a cross-product FAQ for this second fact), locking at the starting balance once 10% profit is reached (and, per a directly-applicable FAQ, also locking on any withdrawal request — recorded as a documented_omission, inert during the evaluation phase this file scores); min 5 trading days per phase; and NO consistency rule on Standard (structural absence, contrasted against the sibling Classic/Lightning variants on the same page which do carry one). The two readers' reports disagreed only in WORDING or in WHICH first-party page they chose to cite for the same fact (e.g. daily_loss_url; the profit-target/daily-loss/max-drawdown row quotes; the trailing anchor described as "starting/initial balance" — recorded per corpus convention as "highest_water_mark" since type=trailing, with the lock point itself at the initial balance) — none of these were entered as ambiguities[] because no two candidate VALUES were ever actually in tension. pricing.initial_fee was supplied by only one of the two blind readers (not independently corroborated) — flagged in its own provenance entry, not counted as a two-pass field here since pricing is not a MATERIAL_FIELD.

    consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss includes unrealized: confirmed daily loss on breach: confirmed max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown includes unrealized: confirmed max drawdown locks: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed

    No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

    Sources recorded for this check:
    https://fxify.com/programs/two-phase/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-you-calculate-the-daily-loss-limit/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/if-i-breach-the-rules-what-happens-next/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-withdrawals-affect-drawdown-on-1-and-2-phase-accounts/
    Link to this check
  • Confirmed, no changes

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

    USD 100,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

    Field-by-field: 13 confirmed (13 fields touched this pass).

    CONFIRMED by both blind passes for $100k, every material field, once wording/citation-source variations are set aside: 10% Phase-1 / 5% Phase-2 profit targets; 4% daily loss recalculated off the prior day's 5PM EST end-of-day balance, tested against live equity, on-breach = full account invalidation + forfeited fee; 10% trailing max drawdown whose high-water mark ratchets on the CLOSED trading balance (not intraday peaks) but whose breach test is itself checked against live equity (both readers independently cited a cross-product FAQ for this second fact), locking at the starting balance once 10% profit is reached (and, per a directly-applicable FAQ, also locking on any withdrawal request — recorded as a documented_omission, inert during the evaluation phase this file scores); min 5 trading days per phase; and NO consistency rule on Standard (structural absence, contrasted against the sibling Classic/Lightning variants on the same page which do carry one). The two readers' reports disagreed only in WORDING or in WHICH first-party page they chose to cite for the same fact (e.g. daily_loss_url; the profit-target/daily-loss/max-drawdown row quotes; the trailing anchor described as "starting/initial balance" — recorded per corpus convention as "highest_water_mark" since type=trailing, with the lock point itself at the initial balance) — none of these were entered as ambiguities[] because no two candidate VALUES were ever actually in tension. pricing.initial_fee was supplied by only one of the two blind readers (not independently corroborated) — flagged in its own provenance entry, not counted as a two-pass field here since pricing is not a MATERIAL_FIELD.

    consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss includes unrealized: confirmed daily loss on breach: confirmed max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown includes unrealized: confirmed max drawdown locks: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed

    No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

    Sources recorded for this check:
    https://fxify.com/programs/two-phase/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-you-calculate-the-daily-loss-limit/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/if-i-breach-the-rules-what-happens-next/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-withdrawals-affect-drawdown-on-1-and-2-phase-accounts/
    Link to this check
  • Confirmed, no changes

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

    USD 10,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

    Field-by-field: 13 confirmed (13 fields touched this pass).

    CONFIRMED by both blind passes for $10k, every material field, once wording/citation-source variations are set aside: 10% Phase-1 / 5% Phase-2 profit targets; 4% daily loss recalculated off the prior day's 5PM EST end-of-day balance, tested against live equity, on-breach = full account invalidation + forfeited fee; 10% trailing max drawdown whose high-water mark ratchets on the CLOSED trading balance (not intraday peaks) but whose breach test is itself checked against live equity (both readers independently cited a cross-product FAQ for this second fact), locking at the starting balance once 10% profit is reached (and, per a directly-applicable FAQ, also locking on any withdrawal request — recorded as a documented_omission, inert during the evaluation phase this file scores); min 5 trading days per phase; and NO consistency rule on Standard (structural absence, contrasted against the sibling Classic/Lightning variants on the same page which do carry one). The two readers' reports disagreed only in WORDING or in WHICH first-party page they chose to cite for the same fact (e.g. daily_loss_url; the profit-target/daily-loss/max-drawdown row quotes; the trailing anchor described as "starting/initial balance" — recorded per corpus convention as "highest_water_mark" since type=trailing, with the lock point itself at the initial balance) — none of these were entered as ambiguities[] because no two candidate VALUES were ever actually in tension. pricing.initial_fee was supplied by only one of the two blind readers (not independently corroborated) — flagged in its own provenance entry, not counted as a two-pass field here since pricing is not a MATERIAL_FIELD.

    consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss includes unrealized: confirmed daily loss on breach: confirmed max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown includes unrealized: confirmed max drawdown locks: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed

    No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

    Sources recorded for this check:
    https://fxify.com/programs/two-phase/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-you-calculate-the-daily-loss-limit/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/if-i-breach-the-rules-what-happens-next/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-withdrawals-affect-drawdown-on-1-and-2-phase-accounts/
    Link to this check
  • Confirmed, no changes

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

    USD 5,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

    Field-by-field: 13 confirmed (13 fields touched this pass).

    CONFIRMED by both blind passes for $5k, every material field, once wording/citation-source variations are set aside: 10% Phase-1 / 5% Phase-2 profit targets; 4% daily loss recalculated off the prior day's 5PM EST end-of-day balance, tested against live equity, on-breach = full account invalidation + forfeited fee; 10% trailing max drawdown whose high-water mark ratchets on the CLOSED trading balance (not intraday peaks) but whose breach test is itself checked against live equity (both readers independently cited a cross-product FAQ for this second fact), locking at the starting balance once 10% profit is reached (and, per a directly-applicable FAQ, also locking on any withdrawal request — recorded as a documented_omission, inert during the evaluation phase this file scores); min 5 trading days per phase; and NO consistency rule on Standard (structural absence, contrasted against the sibling Classic/Lightning variants on the same page which do carry one). The two readers' reports disagreed only in WORDING or in WHICH first-party page they chose to cite for the same fact (e.g. daily_loss_url; the profit-target/daily-loss/max-drawdown row quotes; the trailing anchor described as "starting/initial balance" — recorded per corpus convention as "highest_water_mark" since type=trailing, with the lock point itself at the initial balance) — none of these were entered as ambiguities[] because no two candidate VALUES were ever actually in tension. pricing.initial_fee was supplied by only one of the two blind readers (not independently corroborated) — flagged in its own provenance entry, not counted as a two-pass field here since pricing is not a MATERIAL_FIELD.

    consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss includes unrealized: confirmed daily loss on breach: confirmed max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown includes unrealized: confirmed max drawdown locks: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed

    No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

    Sources recorded for this check:
    https://fxify.com/programs/two-phase/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-you-calculate-the-daily-loss-limit/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/if-i-breach-the-rules-what-happens-next/
    https://fxify.com/faqs/all-faqs/how-do-withdrawals-affect-drawdown-on-1-and-2-phase-accounts/
    Link to this check

Earlier record links

These retained links open the complete size and program membership of the earlier grouped record. Each distinct check now has its own link.

2026-07-30 · earlier grouped record

What the rules say now

profit target pct (same across all modelled sizes)

All sizes10
Two Phase / Standard, $5k account, row "Profit Target": Phase 1 value "$500 | 10%" (Funded column: "---").
retrieved sourced

min trading days (same across all modelled sizes)

All sizes5
(derived: no verbatim "Min Trading Days" row text was captured by either blind reader; see reasoning)
retrieved derived

daily loss amount pct (same across all modelled sizes)

All sizes4
$5k row "Daily Loss Limit": 4% (shown across Phase 1 / Phase 2 / Funded columns).
retrieved sourced

max drawdown amount pct (same across all modelled sizes)

All sizes10
$5k row "Max Trailing Drawdown": "10%" (shown across Phase 1 / Phase 2 / Funded columns).
retrieved sourced

max drawdown type (same across all modelled sizes)

All sizestrailing
"Trailing drawdown - 10% trails your closed trading balance until you reach 10% profits in your account. Once you have achieved 10% in your account the max trailing locks in at your starting balance, and no longer trails your account."
retrieved sourced

max drawdown basis (same across all modelled sizes)

All sizesend-of-day balance
"Trailing drawdown - 10% trails your closed trading balance until you reach 10% profits in your account. Once you have achieved 10% in your account the max trailing locks in at your starting balance, and no longer trails your account."
retrieved sourced

max drawdown locks

5000—Both blind readers additionally found that the Max Drawdown floor locks at the starting balance immediately upon ANY withdrawal request, regardless of profit level — a second, independent lock trigger alongside the 10%-profit trigger already modeled in phases[*].maximum drawdown lock / freeze condition. The schema's locks:{at,value} shape has no field for an alternate trigger condition, so it is not modeled. Recorded as inert for this file's ruin/survival maths: withdrawals are not possible during the Phase 1 / Phase 2 evaluation this corpus file scores (no funded-account payouts occur pre-funding), so the omission cannot change any evaluation-phase outcome. Relevant only to a future funded-stage model.
10000—Both blind readers additionally found that the Max Drawdown floor locks at the starting balance immediately upon ANY withdrawal request, regardless of profit level — a second, independent lock trigger alongside the 10%-profit trigger already modeled in phases[*].maximum drawdown lock / freeze condition. The schema's locks:{at,value} shape has no field for an alternate trigger condition, so it is not modeled. Recorded as inert for this file's ruin/survival maths: withdrawals are not possible during the Phase 1 / Phase 2 evaluation this corpus file scores (no funded-account payouts occur pre-funding), so the omission cannot change any evaluation-phase outcome. Relevant only to a future funded-stage model.
15000—Both blind readers additionally found that the Max Drawdown floor locks at the starting balance immediately upon ANY withdrawal request, regardless of profit level — a second, independent lock trigger alongside the 10%-profit trigger already modeled in phases[*].maximum drawdown lock / freeze condition. The schema's locks:{at,value} shape has no field for an alternate trigger condition, so it is not modeled. Recorded as inert for this file's ruin/survival maths: withdrawals are not possible during the Phase 1 / Phase 2 evaluation this corpus file scores (no funded-account payouts occur pre-funding), so the omission cannot change any evaluation-phase outcome. Relevant only to a future funded-stage model.
25000—Both blind readers additionally found that the Max Drawdown floor locks at the starting balance immediately upon ANY withdrawal request, regardless of profit level — a second, independent lock trigger alongside the 10%-profit trigger already modeled in phases[*].maximum drawdown lock / freeze condition. The schema's locks:{at,value} shape has no field for an alternate trigger condition, so it is not modeled. Recorded as inert for this file's ruin/survival maths: withdrawals are not possible during the Phase 1 / Phase 2 evaluation this corpus file scores (no funded-account payouts occur pre-funding), so the omission cannot change any evaluation-phase outcome. Relevant only to a future funded-stage model.
50000—Both blind readers additionally found that the Max Drawdown floor locks at the starting balance immediately upon ANY withdrawal request, regardless of profit level — a second, independent lock trigger alongside the 10%-profit trigger already modeled in phases[*].maximum drawdown lock / freeze condition. The schema's locks:{at,value} shape has no field for an alternate trigger condition, so it is not modeled. Recorded as inert for this file's ruin/survival maths: withdrawals are not possible during the Phase 1 / Phase 2 evaluation this corpus file scores (no funded-account payouts occur pre-funding), so the omission cannot change any evaluation-phase outcome. Relevant only to a future funded-stage model.
100000—Both blind readers additionally found that the Max Drawdown floor locks at the starting balance immediately upon ANY withdrawal request, regardless of profit level — a second, independent lock trigger alongside the 10%-profit trigger already modeled in phases[*].maximum drawdown lock / freeze condition. The schema's locks:{at,value} shape has no field for an alternate trigger condition, so it is not modeled. Recorded as inert for this file's ruin/survival maths: withdrawals are not possible during the Phase 1 / Phase 2 evaluation this corpus file scores (no funded-account payouts occur pre-funding), so the omission cannot change any evaluation-phase outcome. Relevant only to a future funded-stage model.
200000—Both blind readers additionally found that the Max Drawdown floor locks at the starting balance immediately upon ANY withdrawal request, regardless of profit level — a second, independent lock trigger alongside the 10%-profit trigger already modeled in phases[*].maximum drawdown lock / freeze condition. The schema's locks:{at,value} shape has no field for an alternate trigger condition, so it is not modeled. Recorded as inert for this file's ruin/survival maths: withdrawals are not possible during the Phase 1 / Phase 2 evaluation this corpus file scores (no funded-account payouts occur pre-funding), so the omission cannot change any evaluation-phase outcome. Relevant only to a future funded-stage model.
400000—Both blind readers additionally found that the Max Drawdown floor locks at the starting balance immediately upon ANY withdrawal request, regardless of profit level — a second, independent lock trigger alongside the 10%-profit trigger already modeled in phases[*].maximum drawdown lock / freeze condition. The schema's locks:{at,value} shape has no field for an alternate trigger condition, so it is not modeled. Recorded as inert for this file's ruin/survival maths: withdrawals are not possible during the Phase 1 / Phase 2 evaluation this corpus file scores (no funded-account payouts occur pre-funding), so the omission cannot change any evaluation-phase outcome. Relevant only to a future funded-stage model.

consistency (same across all modelled sizes)

All sizes
No "Consistency Rule" row appears anywhere in the Two Phase / Standard table for any of its sizes (only 4 rows exist per size: Profit Target, Daily Loss Limit, Max Trailing Drawdown, Refundable Fee). Structural absence, not an affirmative firm statement of "no consistency rule" — for contrast, the sibling "Two Phase / Classic" variant on the SAME page explicitly carries a "Consistency Rule" row ("N/A" / "N/A" / "25%"), and "Lightning" explicitly carries "30%".
retrieved sourced

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 FXIFY.