FIDES-Live: Evaluating Behavioral Concordance in Sequential Trading Agents

An LLM asked for a trading strategy returns three artifacts at once: a natural-language rationale, an executable implementation, and once run, a track record. Whether these are the same object is rarely checked. We present FIDES, a measurement protocol that treats them as three views to be reconciled rather than one deliverable to be graded. Through dual delivery, a single model call returns both a natural-language strategy with an explicit claimed edge and a self-contained strategy(df) function. FIDES executes the code in a sandbox against a lag-one out-of-sample backtest and scores three concordance gaps: say to do, do to real, and say to result. On 8 liquid US ETFs across four models plus a two-stage elicitation arm, 40 strategies, 2023 to 2024 out-of-sample, three findings stand out. First, concordance does not predict profit: only 2 of 40 strategies beat buy-and-hold, and a plain sma(50,200) rule outperforms every model's mean Sharpe. Second, self-assessment is badly calibrated: 32 of 40 strategies claim to beat buy-and-hold and exactly one does. Third, swapping the language-code judge for a second model flips say to do on more than half of items. Injecting Close.shift(-1) drops do to real by 0.33 on average, while our runtime future-information probe fired on neither clean nor injected code. We frame FIDES as a protocol for measurement fidelity, not a claim about market performance.

Replaying a financial agent requires specifying the conditions of a rerun, preserving its execution record, and deciding which parts of its behavior to compare. We introduce the Determinism-Faithfulness Assurance Harness (DFAH), a framework and practical protocol for organizing these choices. The framework distinguishes comparisons of final decisions, tool-name sets, and ordered tool names, while treating support from available evidence as a separate evaluation target. We illustrate the framework using 2,957 recorded executions in synthetic compliance-triage and data-operations tasks. One data-operations configuration repeated its recorded decision across all trials on 84% of cases, while its ordered tool-name sequence repeated on 26%. Conversely, some compliance cases retained the same tool sequence while recorded decisions changed. A case-level example shows how repeated labels accompanied different lookups and escalation calls. These observations demonstrate how the comparison level changes the description of repeated behavior. The resulting protocol connects configuration control, preservation of each attempt, comparison of records, and inspection of changed cases. DFAH provides a practical foundation for designing replay experiments and locating execution differences during the development and evaluation of financial agents.

Trading discipline often fails people. Our study tested whether four AI trading agents followed their strategies and risk rules. Offering traders the evidence and an agent evaluation toolkit to separate luck from following the rules, before giving agents meaningful autonomy or capital. Our study analysed 2,627 closed positions from 12 February to 27 August 2026 across the same asset universe and execution conditions. Most positions were simulated against live prices with a 0.09% round-trip fee; 18% involved real Hyperliquid orders. Each position declared a strategy, stop and target, with a limit of five open positions per agent. The fleet finished net positive after fees. Rule adherence was high across all four agents, including the unprofitable one. Profitability tracked how often agents won relative to their break-even win rates. Institutional-style controls ran by default and contained losses through a 29% market drawdown and recovery, with documented exceptions. The discipline held for all four agents. Agents kept 97.5% of gross loss within declared stops, and typical losses closed at declared levels. Declared risk remained stable after losses and broadly stable across calm and volatile months. Twenty-three of 24 runs respected the position limit; logs identify the exception's size and duration. The same live data produced different results across assigned strategies. The trade-log tests can be rerun from the published trade snapshot; regime tests also require the published Bitcoin prices and regime labels. Section 3.5 specifies the stop-breach tolerance. These trade-level results are not account-level returns or proof of a lasting edge. Our study provides an evaluation toolkit to help traders distinguish rule-following from luck before committing capital. For anyone considering allocating capital to agents to trade, discipline should be the entry test, not the only test.