Lux Trading Firm — Verification Record

This is the complete, dated record of every independent verification pass this corpus has run against Lux Trading Firm'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.

• 2026-09-13 Documented-absent

  First party single pass

  Field-by-field: 2 noted (2 fields touched this pass).

  PKG-E payout/reset-fee provenance backfill. Lux confirms on-demand payouts (no fixed cycle) and publishes reset fees only in GBP (100K £139 / 400K £299 / 1M £699); left both null (currency mismatch + on-demand) rather than invent a USD figure or a cycle number.

  Sources consulted: https://luxtradingfirm.com/rules-of-engagement-3/ — checked 2026-09-13
• 2026-07-30 Confirmed, no changes

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

  Field-by-field: 6 confirmed · 2 noted (8 fields touched this pass).

  Two independent blind first-party readers reached the current 1-Step Evaluation rules page (rules-of-engagement-3) plus its sibling product/pricing page (1-step-evaluation). Both agree on every material number for this size: 10% / $10,000 profit target; 6% / $6,000 static (non-trailing) drawdown anchored on the starting balance, floor $94,000; a 5%-of-Remaining-Risk-Capital per-trade consistency rule (RRC = balance - drawdown limit); no daily loss limit stated anywhere; no stated minimum trading days; £199 one-time evaluation fee, 100% refunded on passing; 80% funded-stage profit split. The merge tool flagged 5 sub-fields as agree:false (profit target quote, max drawdown anchor, max drawdown quote, consistency enforced at, consistency quote); on inspection every one is a transcription/paraphrase difference of the identical fact (e g. a trailing period, a label prefix, 'does not rise' vs 'does not move up'), not a genuine second reading — so none were entered in ambiguities[], per the template's rule that corroborating quotes belong in provenance reasoning, not ambiguities[]. THIRD source (trading-rules/, the site's own 'Old Trading Rules' page) was read by neither pass as authoritative for this product: it describes a different, TRAILING 'Relative Drawdown' mechanic on a different legacy 50K/200K/1MM ladder, contradicting this page's explicit STATIC drawdown; cited only as a superseded worked-example source at, never used to source a live field here.

  Sources consulted: https://luxtradingfirm.com/rules-of-engagement-3/, https://luxtradingfirm.com/1-step-evaluation/, https://luxtradingfirm.com/trading-rules/ — checked 2026-07-30

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 Lux Trading Firm.