Two squeezes can look identical on a chart and behave nothing alike. The grade scores the setup factors that separated winners from coin flips across our 22-year, 5,852-trade backtest, and it always shows its work.
Each factor earned its place by moving the numbers in our backtests. Together they decide the grade. The symbol's own history never does.
Setups graded best in our sample when the trend stack had held roughly 21 to 80 days: established, but not exhausted.
The favorable window in our backtests sat around 1.0 to 2.5 ATR from the mean. Too close and there is no spring, too far and the move is spent.
Liquidity and capitalization tier changed how these setups resolved in our sample, so the grade accounts for it.
Momentum direction and quality during the compression rounded out the grade in our research.
Because we tested the obvious alternative and it failed. A symbol's own past win rate did not persist; it told you almost nothing about its next trade. The setup factors, measured across the whole 22-year sample, did carry signal.
So the grade is built only from the factors. The per-symbol backtest stays on the page as the receipts, clearly labeled as context, never as the verdict.


A grade you cannot interrogate is just another black box. Every graded setup spells out its scoring, so you always know where it stands.
A list of squeezes asks you 200 questions. A graded board answers most of them before you arrive, and shows the work for the rest.
An A+ on one stock means the same thing as an A+ on another, because both come from the same factors.
Start at the top of the grades and work down. The board has already ordered the homework.
Every grade traces to factors, and every factor traces to a study you can open.
Every setup graded, every grade explained, every factor backed by 22 years of evidence.