Three checkpoints in this guide
Follow the full walkthrough in order, or jump directly to one of its main sections.
How to use this template: close the month, reconcile the trade sample, copy the seven sections below, and leave any unsupported field as Unknown. The output is not a grade or a prediction. It is a dated record of what the evidence supports, what it does not support, and what you will test next.
A monthly review template is most valuable when it preserves the same account, currency, calendar boundary and inclusion rules every time. That consistency turns a narrative recap into a comparable evidence record without pretending one month proves a lasting edge.
Why Monthly Reviews Matter
A daily note explains one trade. A weekly review can catch a short sequence. A monthly review asks a different question: across one fixed calendar period, what changed in results, execution, and evidence quality?
Keep the monthly report separate from the monthly decision. The report is descriptive: net P&L, trades, expectancy, drawdown, setup mix, rule evidence, and data gaps. The decision is editorial: continue, investigate, reduce exposure, pause a setup, or collect more evidence. A good result does not prove a good process, and a bad result does not prove that a tested process has stopped working.
This review sits above the weekly trading review. Weekly notes preserve the sequence of events; the monthly pass tests whether the same issue recurred, whether its cost was concentrated, and whether the next rule is measurable.
Section 1: Headline Numbers
Start with reconciled numbers, not memory. Record the analyzed sample and its exclusions before interpreting any metric.
| Metric | This month | Previous comparable month | Evidence note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visible closed trades | ___ | ___ | All closed records in scope |
| Analyzed trades | ___ | ___ | Rows with a usable result |
| Excluded / unresolved | ___ | ___ | List the reason; never count missing P&L as zero |
| Net P&L | ___ | ___ | Same account currency and cost treatment |
| Win rate | ___ | ___ | Wins ÷ decided trades |
| Profit factor | ___ | ___ | Gross profit ÷ absolute gross loss |
| Expectancy | ___ | ___ | Net P&L ÷ analyzed trades |
| Maximum observed drawdown | ___ | ___ | Peak-to-trough decline on the ordered closed-trade path |
| Recorded costs | ___ | ___ | Fees and funding actually present in the source |
| Trading days | ___ | ___ | Distinct analytical dates |
Profit factor = gross profit ÷ absolute gross loss.
Expectancy = net result ÷ analyzed trades.
Observed drawdown = largest peak-to-later-trough decline in the ordered result path.
Do not convert an undefined ratio into a flattering number. If there is no gross loss in the period, profit factor is undefined or infinite—not zero. If trade results, dates, fees, or account currency cannot be reconciled, label the affected metric Unknown and keep the gap visible.
One month can be a small or unrepresentative sample. Uncertainty depends on both sample size and dispersion; a fixed trade-count threshold cannot make every strategy comparable. NIST's explanation of confidence intervals is a useful statistical boundary: limited data increases uncertainty. Treat thin setup rows as leads to inspect, not permission to optimize the strategy.
Section 2: Setup-Level Breakdown
Account-level totals can hide a strong setup beside an expensive leak. Break the same reconciled sample into stable setup labels. Do not merge renamed setups unless their entry, invalidation, exit, and market rules are materially equivalent.
| Setup | Trades | Net | Expectancy | PF | Max DD | Coverage / note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setup A | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ of ___ mapped |
| Setup B | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ of ___ mapped |
| Setup C | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ of ___ mapped |
| Unmapped / no planned setup | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | Resolve before a setup verdict |
Read the last row first. Missing setup evidence is not a neutral setup and must not be silently distributed across the named rows. Then compare each setup with its own prior-period evidence and with the remaining trades from the same account and date range. The concentration is observational; it does not establish that the setup label caused the result.
Use the performance-analysis guide when a row needs a deeper drill-down by session, instrument, side, or cost drag.
Section 3: Top 3 Best and Worst Trades
Pull the three largest positive and three largest negative resolved outcomes, then inspect process independently from outcome. The purpose is not to celebrate winners and punish losers. It is to find lucky deviations, correct losses, avoidable execution errors, and outliers that dominate the monthly total.
| Trade | Outcome | Setup valid? | Risk per plan? | Entry / exit per plan? | Repeat? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Largest positive 1 | ___ | Yes / No / Unknown | Yes / No / Unknown | ___ | Yes / No / Modified |
| Largest positive 2 | ___ | Yes / No / Unknown | Yes / No / Unknown | ___ | Yes / No / Modified |
| Largest positive 3 | ___ | Yes / No / Unknown | Yes / No / Unknown | ___ | Yes / No / Modified |
| Largest negative 1 | ___ | Yes / No / Unknown | Yes / No / Unknown | ___ | Yes / No / Modified |
| Largest negative 2 | ___ | Yes / No / Unknown | Yes / No / Unknown | ___ | Yes / No / Modified |
| Largest negative 3 | ___ | Yes / No / Unknown | Yes / No / Unknown | ___ | Yes / No / Modified |
Write one sentence of evidence for every No or Modified answer. A profitable off-plan trade is still a process violation. A planned loss may require no rule change. If one outlier dominates the month, show the monthly metrics both with and without it, clearly labeled; do not delete the trade from the canonical record.
Section 4: Biggest Leak This Month
A leak needs a definition that another reviewer could reproduce. “Bad discipline” is not a definition. “Trades entered outside the saved session window” or “trades without a mapped setup” is testable.
- Define the affected slice. State the rule, tag, time window, or sequence condition.
- Count its evidence. Record matching trades, net result, expectancy, costs, and drawdown.
- Choose a fair comparison. Use other trades from the same account and period where possible.
- State the limitation. Note missing tags, small samples, overlap with other behaviors, and market-regime imbalance.
- Name the preventable part. Separate market loss from the incremental exposure created by the behavior.
If the recurring pattern is extra entries after a loss or after a planned session limit, compare it with the evidence framework in the overtrading cost analysis.
Section 5: Rule Compliance Audit
Audit only rules that existed before the trade. A rule invented after seeing the result cannot be scored retroactively as if the trader knowingly violated it.
| Saved rule | Eligible opportunities | Followed | Violated | Unknown | Observed impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 1: ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
| Rule 2: ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
| Rule 3: ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
Compliance rate is Followed ÷ resolved eligible opportunities, not Followed ÷ all trades. Keep Unknown outside the denominator and display it beside the rate. “Observed impact” can include incremental size, fees, slippage, or outcome difference, but it must not pretend to know the counterfactual result of a trade that was never taken.
Section 6: Market Context
Record context to preserve comparability, not to explain away every loss. Use evidence available from the calendar, instrument, session, and trade record:
- Market and instrument scope: what was actually traded?
- Session mix: did the distribution move between time windows?
- Volatility or regime label: which predefined label was used, and how was it assigned?
- Scheduled event exposure: which trades overlapped a documented event window?
- Operational changes: broker, platform, data feed, account, sizing, or strategy-version changes.
Do not create a new regime label solely because the month lost money. If the label was not defined or captured consistently, record Unknown and add the field prospectively.
Section 7: Next Month's Action Items
Choose no more than three actions so each one can be observed. This is a workflow limit, not a scientific law. Every action needs a trigger, response, measurement, review date, and stop or escalation condition.
| Trigger | Action | Measure | Review date | Stop / escalate when |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| If ___ | Then I will ___ | Count / rate / amount: ___ | ___ | ___ |
| If ___ | Then I will ___ | Count / rate / amount: ___ | ___ | ___ |
| If ___ | Then I will ___ | Count / rate / amount: ___ | ___ | ___ |
Example: “If I close a second loss in the session, then I stop opening new positions until the next planned session. Measure: eligible triggers, followed, violated, and Unknown.” This is auditable. “Be disciplined” is not.
At the next review, evaluate whether the action was followed before evaluating whether P&L improved. If the sample is too thin to judge the outcome, keep the action unchanged or collect more evidence rather than optimizing it to noise.
Putting It All Together in TSB
Ownership disclosure: Trader's Second Brain is our product. It is relevant here because the monthly workflow depends on a reconciled trade record, account scope, period comparison, setup and session evidence, review states, and saved rules—not because using a journal guarantees improvement.
TSB's canonical source registry currently recognizes 331 structured broker, exchange, platform, and prop-export profiles. Recognition is route-specific. Check the exact source in the supported-source directory, import a representative file, and reconcile dates, instruments, tickets, gross result, fees, funding, and net result before reading the month.
The server-rendered Reports surface can compare a selected calendar month with its prior comparable period and display analyzed counts, excluded evidence, coverage gaps, headline metrics, observed drivers, and limitations. It labels unavailable evidence instead of converting it to a clean-looking zero. Open the monthly report, then use its evidence links to inspect the underlying trades in the Journal.
- Freeze the exact account, period, and currency scope.
- Resolve missing results and verify setup, session, instrument, and side coverage.
- Copy factual metrics into Sections 1–3 without rewriting the source record.
- Write the leak, compliance interpretation, context, and next action separately.
- Save the action as a rule and check it in the next weekly and monthly review.
Reconcile First, Interpret Second
Current monthly and lifetime access values render from server product truth. TSB can organize and calculate recorded evidence; it cannot recover facts absent from the source, prove causality, validate an unseen broker statement, or guarantee a trading outcome.
Review current TSB optionsCopy-and-Use Monthly Review
Scope: account ___ · currency ___ · period ___ · comparison ___
Evidence: visible ___ · analyzed ___ · excluded ___ · unresolved ___
Headline: net ___ · win rate ___ · PF ___ · expectancy ___ · max DD ___ · costs ___
Setup concentration: ___ · sample and coverage limitation: ___
Extremes: largest positive/negative outcomes and process verdicts: ___
Biggest observed leak: definition ___ · affected slice ___ · comparison ___ · limitation ___
Rule compliance: followed ___ · violated ___ · unknown ___
Context: market · session · event · operations: ___
Next action: if ___, then ___ · measure ___ · review ___ · stop/escalate ___
If you need a clean place to collect the source rows before the review, use the free trading journal template. For interpreting a noisy profit-factor row, keep the sample and loss denominator visible and consult the profit factor guide.
Monthly Review Completion Checklist
- The current and comparison periods use the same account, currency, calendar, and inclusion rules.
- Visible, analyzed, excluded, and unresolved counts reconcile.
- No missing value was converted to zero.
- Profit factor, expectancy, and drawdown use stated definitions.
- Setup conclusions display sample size and mapping coverage.
- Largest winners and losers received separate process verdicts.
- The leak is reproducible and described as concentration, not automatic causation.
- Compliance uses rules that existed before the eligible trade.
- Context labels were defined consistently or marked Unknown.
- The next action has a trigger, response, measure, review date, and stop condition.
The review is complete when another reader can reproduce the numbers, see every material limitation, and know exactly what will be checked next month. A polished narrative without that audit trail is not complete.
Methodology and Boundaries
This revision was checked on September 9, 2026 against the local TSB Reports, Journal, review-loop, observed-analytics implementation, and canonical product truth. Product statements describe visible current behavior in the reviewed code; they do not promise that every imported source contains every analytical field.
Metric definitions are calculation conventions for this template. The statistical caution follows NIST's treatment of confidence intervals: uncertainty depends on sample size, dispersion, and assumptions, so no universal number of trades turns a monthly observation into proof. The editorial workflow deliberately separates observed concentration from causality and leaves unsupported states as Unknown.
