Rating your execution 1 to 5, separately from the result

[Fairman]

Rating your execution 1 to 5, separately from the result

After each trade, I give the execution a score from 1 to 5. Not the outcome, just how well I followed the plan. Did I enter where I meant to? Was the stop in the right place? Did I manage the trade by the rules? Did I exit as planned?

A 5 is a trade done exactly as intended, whatever the result. A 1 is a trade that broke several rules. Most fall somewhere in between.

The point is to separate two things that get mixed up: whether a trade was good, and whether it made money. A losing trade with a 5 is fine. A winning trade with a 2 is a warning, because the result came despite the execution, not because of it.

After a few weeks, you can look at average execution score over time. If it's rising, you're getting more disciplined, even if results are flat. You can also compare results by score. Usually higher scored trades do better on average, which is a nice confirmation that the plan works when followed.

To keep it honest, I score straight after closing the trade, before looking at what price did next. Otherwise it's tempting to rate a trade higher because it would have worked if I'd held.

[Fairman]

It helps to define what each score means in advance, at least roughly. For example: 5 means everything as planned, 4 means one small deviation like entering a pip early, 3 means one meaningful deviation, 2 means several, 1 means the trade shouldn't have been taken at all. Without definitions, scores drift with mood. With them, they stay comparable over months, which is what makes the trend useful. Writing the definitions on a small card next to the screen helps keep them consistent on busy days. It also stops the score from quietly getting more generous after a good run.

[Fairman]

Combining this with a short note on the main deviation makes it much more useful. A 3 with 'moved stop to breakeven too early' tells you exactly what to work on. After a month, grouping the notes often shows one or two recurring issues. That's more practical than a general aim to be more disciplined, because you know exactly which behaviour to focus on in the next sessions. One focus for a week or two is usually enough. Trying to fix everything at once rarely works for long. Pick one, work on it, then move on.

[FXS Prop Desk]

A losing trade with a 5 is better than a winning trade with a 2, and the score makes that visible.

Over time, comparing average scores with results shows how much execution matters. Many traders find that trades scored 4 or 5 are profitable on average, while those scored 1 or 2 lose. That gives a clear reason to focus on process.

[Fairman]

Rating execution immediately after the trade, before looking at the result in detail, keeps the score honest. If you rate it after seeing that the trade made money, it's tempting to give a higher score. Rating first and checking the result second avoids that. In practice this means deciding the score as soon as the trade closes, based only on whether you followed the plan, and writing it down before you check the profit and loss. It only takes a few seconds, and the habit sticks quickly once it's part of the closing routine.

[Fairman]

After a few months, comparing average execution scores with average results by month can be revealing. If months with higher execution scores tend to have better results, it confirms that following the plan matters for your strategy. If there's no relationship, either the plan doesn't have an edge or the scoring isn't consistent. Either way, it's useful to know. Has anyone done this over a longer period and seen a clear link between the two? Even a rough scatter of score against result for each month is enough to see the trend. If the link is weak, rewriting the scoring guide so each number means something more specific often helps.