OFP Funding — Verification Record

This is the complete, dated record of every independent verification pass this corpus has run against OFP Funding'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 Partial

  Live primary source recheck

  Field-by-field: 2 confirmed · 1 resolved · 13 noted (16 fields touched this pass).

  Live recheck 2026-08-12: 13 commercial fields confirmed against live pricing NUXT + help + ToS. 0 provable drift (every live source predates corpus retrieved_at 2026-07-31). 5 fields could-not-verify on genuine live OFP-vs-OFP (pricing-vs-Terms) conflicts; the corpus's original "5-days = Instant Plus" reasoning is falsified by live ToS §1.2 Instant Classic — those stay could-not-verify, values unchanged.

  Sources consulted: https://ofpfunding.com/pricing, https://help.ofpfunding.com, https://ofpfunding.com/terms-and-conditions — 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: 9 confirmed · 7 preserved for the record (16 fields touched this pass).

  Two independent blind first-party readers sourced OFP Funding's Instant Funding "Classic" plan (type:"instant" in the site's own server-rendered product data), the operator-designated flagship product for this firm because it is the only Instant-Mode tier that is both genuinely zero-evaluation (profitTarget:null, minTradingDays:0, maxTradingDays:null) and priced up to $300,000. Reader A worked directly from the site's own server-rendered product payload (script#__NUXT_DATA__ on https://ofpfunding.com/pricing, fetched with a normal browser User-Agent after WebFetch's default UA was 403'd) plus the dedicated Help Center mechanic pages for Daily Drawdown and Maximum Drawdown. Reader B worked substantially from an "Instant Plus" comparison table (§1.5) and the Terms & Conditions. CONFIRMED across all five sizes in this ladder ($5,000/$10,000/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000): no profit target, no minimum trading days (both null on Classic's own record); 3% daily loss / 6% overall drawdown risk pair (a second, higher-priced 5%/10% pair exists and is not modeled); daily loss recomputed each day from the prior day's closing equity (day_start_balance), testing floating P&L continuously; immediate, permanent account closure on either breach; one-time per-size fee, no subscription; 80% base profit split (100% split purchasable separately at every size). DISAGREE, all resolved per ambiguities[] above: (a) phases[0].max_drawdown.type/anchor/locks — reader A's "static/fixed" framing vs. reader B's "trailing" framing turn out to describe the SAME anchor (highest balance at start of period or after last Reward) in different words; resolved to static/initial_balance/null because this corpus's engine has no field for a payout-triggered anchor jump, a documented schema/engine gap, not a data error. (b) phases[0].max_drawdown.basis/includes_unrealized — a genuine Help-Center-vs-Terms&Conditions conflict (equity-inclusive vs. balance-only); resolved to the never-understate-risk reading (equity_intraday), corroborated by the Help Center's own worked example and this file's hand-derived vector. (c) phases[0].min_trading_days — reader B's "5" is sourced explicitly to an "Instant Plus" table (a different, five-size, $100k-capped product), not Classic's own record; modeled 0, departing from this corpus's usual stricter-reading default because the harder candidate is judged, on direct textual evidence, to describe a different product — the same class of judgment call rules/maven-trading's own min_trading_days ambiguity documents. (d) phases[0].daily_loss.reset_time_utc — a GMT+2/DST ambiguity, structurally identical to this corpus's existing FTMO/Topstep CET-CEST entries; resolved to the standard-time reading (22:00 UTC). (e) phases[0].consistency — Classic's own record carries an unexplained maxScore:20 internal field (reader A: "an unconfirmed internal signal, not a quoted value") against reader B's "No" sourced to the same Instant Plus table; left empty (schema-unfittable without a sourced percentage), not asserted as "no rule" — flagged for a targeted recheck of OFP's own Terms & Conditions text specifically. NOT promoted to ambiguities[] despite a merge-level "disagree" flag: phases[0].daily_loss.on_breach (wording-only — both "closed immediately" and "permanently closed" mean the same schema value, on_breach:"fail"); phases[0].daily_loss.amount_abs / max_drawdown.amount_abs (reader B simply supplied no dollar figures at all — a coverage gap, not a competing number — while reader A's figures are exactly amount_pct × account_size at every size with no exceptions); phases[0].profit_target_pct/abs (both readers agree null, for two different products); phases[0].daily_loss.includes_unrealized (reader B silent, not a competing "false"); phases[0].daily_loss.amount_basis (reader B flags an unspecified "DISPUTED between two first-party pages" note but supplies no competing quote or value for this field specifically — flagged in this field's own provenance.reasoning as a gap for a future targeted recheck, not promoted to a formal ambiguities[] entry, which requires two sourced candidate values). SCOPE: this firm was NOT previously present anywhere in this corpus (neither rules/ofp-funding/ nor rules/unverified/ofp-funding/ existed before this run) — there is no stale copy to retire. Two further Instant-Mode sizes ($200,000 and $300,000) appear in reader A's own full NUXT_DATA price-grid quote with matching profitTarget:null/minTradingDays:0 flags, but were not independently read by a second blind pass with the same rigor as the five sizes above (reader B's merged findings cover only $5,000–$100,000); no rule file is written for $200,000/$300,000 this run — "covered size" is read as the five sizes the merge itself reconciled across both readers. The golden/hand-derived vector at rules/ofp-funding/hand-derived/ recomputes OFP's own quoted Maximum Drawdown FORMULA at this file's modeled 6% percentage (the firm's only published worked example uses the OTHER selectable risk pair, 10%, giving a $90,000 floor at this same $100,000 size) — filed as hand_derived, not firm_published_example, because OFP never printed the arithmetic for the 6%/$94,000 configuration itself.

  Sources consulted: https://ofpfunding.com/pricing, https://ofpfunding.com/terms-and-conditions, https://help.ofpfunding.com/what-is-the-daily-drawdown-and-how-is-it-calculated/, https://help.ofpfunding.com/what-is-the-maximum-drawdown-and-how-can-i-avoid-hitting-it/, https://help.ofpfunding.com/what-are-the-trading-rules-every-ofp-trader-must-follow/, https://ofpfunding.com/#pricing — 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 OFP Funding.