TradeDay — Verification Record

This is the complete, dated record of every independent verification pass this corpus has run against TradeDay'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: 1 corrected · 6 noted (7 fields touched this pass).

  Live primary-source recheck 2026-08-12: all material fields confirmed unchanged; both stored ambiguities (consistency denominator; split ladder) remain live verbatim; min_trading_days=5 now first-party-quoted (derived->sourced available).

  Sources consulted: https://www.tradeday.com, https://tradeday.freshdesk.com — checked 2026-08-12
• 2026-07-30 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: 5 confirmed · 2 preserved for the record (7 fields touched this pass).

  Two independent blind first-party readers covered TradeDay's Quick Pay Intraday evaluation across all three sold sizes (50k/100k/150k). AGREE: profit target $3,000/$6,000/$9,000 (6% of size, derived not separately published); trailing max drawdown $2,000/$3,000/$4,500 (4%/3%/3% of size, derived); trailing, intraday-calculated, anchored to the highest balance/equity ever reached, freezing once the floor reaches the original starting balance (corroborated end-to-end by TradeDay's own $100,000-account worked example: floor opens at $97,000, ratchets to $98,000 on a purely intraday equity peak that is fully given back by close, then freezes at $100,000 once a later intraday peak reaches $103,000); no separate daily loss limit exists at any size ('TradeDay has just one rule - Don't break the Maximum Drawdown Limit!'); min trading days 5 (both readers agree on the number, neither supplied a verbatim quote for it -- see reasoning on that field); consistency limit 30%, evaluation-stage only, effect raise_target not a fail condition. DISAGREE, RESOLVED VIA ambiguities[]: (a) the consistency rule's own denominator -- TradeDay's article states both a cumulative-total-profit ratio AND a fixed 30%-of-target dollar cap in the same piece; picked the cumulative-ratio reading as conservative (see ambiguities[] basis). (b) funded-stage profit split -- reader A found a detailed 50/50-then-80/20-then-90/10 tier ladder, reader B read a flat 80/20 marketing figure; stored the entry tier (50) as conservative. Neither disagreement is size-specific; the same resolution applies identically across all three sold sizes.

  Sources consulted: https://tradeday.com/, https://tradeday.freshdesk.com/en/support/solutions/articles/103000008847-what-are-the-objectives-and-rules-of-the-quick-pay-and-fast-pass-evaluation-, https://tradeday.freshdesk.com/en/support/solutions/articles/103000008848-what-is-the-profit-target-objective-, https://tradeday.freshdesk.com/en/support/solutions/articles/103000008855-what-is-the-maximum-drawdown-rule-, https://tradeday.freshdesk.com/en/support/solutions/articles/103000008849-what-is-the-consistency-objective-, https://tradeday.freshdesk.com/en/support/solutions/articles/103000335937-quick-pay-funded-sim-payout-policy — 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 TradeDay.