Tradeify — Verification Record

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

• 2026-07-30 Correction applied

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

  Field-by-field: 1 corrected (1 field touched this pass).

  Targeted recheck (operator-directed, 2026-07-30): two FRESH independent blind first-party readers, neither shown our existing 35%@pass/raise_target value nor each other's output, were asked specifically whether Tradeify's GROWTH EVALUATION (pre-funding) stage carries a consistency/best-day rule. Reader A read 4 dedicated help.tradeify.co articles (Growth Evaluation Accounts, SELECT-vs-Growth comparison, the canonical Consistency Rule article, and the Growth Funded Payout Policy article) via a curl+cookie-jar workaround for a Cloudflare JS-challenge; one article's own FAQ asks 'Does Growth Evaluation have a consistency rule?' and answers 'No'. Reader B could not reach help.tradeify.co (persistent Cloudflare block) but independently reached 4 pages on the tradeify.co marketing domain, including a literal per-size, per-stage breakdown table from the Tradeify 3.0 relaunch announcement: 'Growth 25K - Evaluation ... Consistency requirement: None' immediately followed by 'Growth 25K - Funded ... Consistency requirement: 35%' - the same size, two stages, two different consistency states, stated explicitly. TEN independent first-party pages across both readers unanimously agree: the 35% consistency rule is a GROWTH FUNDED (post-evaluation, payout-eligibility) gate only; the Growth EVALUATION stage this corpus models has NO consistency/best-day constraint. Both readers separately note this is corroborated structurally: multiple pages state a trader can hit 100% of the Growth profit target in a single day and pass instantly, which would be impossible under a 35% evaluation-stage cap. Only 2 compressed marketing/summary pages (Pricing Reference, Essential Trading Rules Overview) attach an unqualified '35% consistency rule' bullet to the bare word 'Growth' without a stage qualifier - both readers assess this as sloppy compression of the funded-stage rule, not a genuine second reading, especially against the direct per-size Evaluation-row table that explicitly says 'None'. Correction: phases[0].consistency emptied to [] - this corpus does not model post-funding/payout-stage behavior (see payout{} for split/cycle fields), so the 35% funded-stage gate is out of this corpus's scope, not a value to carry into the evaluation phase's constraint. The prior recorded value (35%/pass/raise_target) is now understood to have overstated the evaluation’s difficulty, confirming the suspicion flagged in the 2026-07-22 check-firms run. NOTE: build-firm-presets.js's consistencyPct() already only wires effect:'block' firms into the live simulator (Tradeify's prior effect was 'raise_target', never block) - so this fix corrects the corpus's documentation/badge-facing claim; it was not silently changing simulated pass/fail outcomes, which already ignored this field.

  Sources consulted: https://help.tradeify.co/en/articles/10495915-growth-evaluation-accounts, https://help.tradeify.co/en/articles/10468320-rules-consistency-rule, https://help.tradeify.co/en/articles/11083796-growth-funded-account-payout-policy, https://tradeify.co/post/tradeify-3-0-here-and-everything-just-changed, https://tradeify.co/post/prop-firm-payout-rules-every-funded-trader-should-know, https://tradeify.co/select-plan — checked 2026-07-30
• 2026-07-22 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).

  Growth plan, both passes agree on target ($1,500/$3,000/$6,000/$9,000), max drawdown $1,000/$2,000/$3,500/$5,000 (EOD trailing, locks start+$100 on funded), and daily loss $600/$1,250/$2,500 at 25/50/100k. Not entered — both readings preserved for the record: (a) CONSISTENCY - our corpus applies a 35% rule at PASS with raise_target, but three detailed first-party articles state the Growth EVALUATION has NO consistency rule ("Growth Evaluation does NOT have a consistency rule at any stage"); the 35% is a funded-payout gate. One summary line on the pricing-reference page lists "35% consistency" for Growth without a stage qualifier. Pass A read funded-only confidently; pass B flagged it unresolved. Because the passes did not cleanly agree AND a first-party mention of 35% exists, NOT changed this run - but our 35%@pass likely OVERSTATES evaluation difficulty. Queued as a priority for a follow-up check. (b) 150k daily loss - $3,750 (eval article) vs $3,000 (DLL table), first-party conflict; preserved at $3,750. (c) min_trading_days - both passes said 1 ("pass in 1 day"); we hold 0 (no stated minimum rule). Interpretive; left at 0.

  Sources consulted: https://help.tradeify.co/en/articles/10495915-growth-evaluation-accounts, https://help.tradeify.co/en/articles/10495897-rules-trailing-max-drawdowns, https://help.tradeify.co/en/articles/10468320-rules-consistency-rule — checked 2026-07-22

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 Tradeify.