Why a month of economic auditing can end with a negative result — and why that is useful

When calculations do not support expectations

There is an audit outcome that rarely appears in portfolios: a properly conducted investigation does not confirm the viability of the options tested.

This is not necessarily a failure. In some cases, that conclusion prevents expensive implementation of changes that do not solve the original problem.

Work on the FIGHTEX economic simulator produced exactly this situation: technical checks and economic criteria gave different answers.

What was tested

The A6.3-R investigation used a matrix of 72 repeat runs on engine version 0.8.1. The aim was to recheck the mechanisms under investigation using a fixed procedure and identify any options that met the established economic criteria.

The outcome had two parts:

Technical status — PASS WITH ACCEPTED LIMITATIONS. Checks passed with explicitly accepted limitations.

Economic status — NO QUALIFIED CANDIDATES. None of the tested options met the selection criteria.

This does not mean the entire project economy has been definitively declared unviable. The conclusion applies to the mechanisms, configurations and test conditions investigated.

Why these statuses must be kept separate

If a simulator calculates incorrectly, a negative financial result cannot establish that the business model is at fault. The tool must be fixed first.

But if technical checks pass and economic criteria remain unmet, endlessly modifying the code to obtain a positive result is also wrong. The problem may lie in the constraints of the design being studied, rather than the calculation engine.

That is the value of independent verification: it prevents an assessment of software quality from replacing an assessment of the economy.

Why 72 runs are not “72 proofs”

The number of repeat runs guarantees nothing by itself. What matters is their configuration, the provenance of input data, engine versions, comparison criteria and reproducibility.

A6.3-R also checked the provenance of files in Git, whether their contents matched the pinned state, and whether the working tree was clean. Independent review ended with no open high- or medium-severity findings; a low-severity finding concerning the wording of the test count was corrected.

This discipline matters because financial conclusions must rest on verifiable artifacts, not a screenshot of a successful run.

Why endlessly tuning coefficients is unhelpful

After a negative result, it is possible to keep changing individual parameters in search of more attractive numbers. But this search is useful only when it tests a substantive hypothesis.

If the mechanisms studied yield no qualifying options, further exploration of the same solutions may increase research costs without removing the fundamental constraints.

Following A6.3-R, further optimisation using those mechanisms was stopped. A decision was then made to allow research into changes to the economic design.

This is a significant transition: instead of trying to squeeze a positive result out of the existing rules, the investigation asks which rules should be reconsidered at all.

What a negative result means for the client

It narrows the decision space. The client learns which approaches have already been tested and why they should not be treated as validated.

This helps avoid budgeting for unconfirmed revenue, promising payouts based on an optimistic scenario, continuing to develop a mechanism without demonstrated economic benefit, or accepting new parameters without agreeing the changed requirements.

At the same time, a negative result should not become a sweeping verdict on the entire product. Its boundaries must be stated as clearly as the result itself.

What comes next

The next stage of FIGHTEX research concerns possible changes to the economic design. This requires new calculations and a review of which original requirements remain in force and which changes need approval.

The project remains in progress. This series of runs does not justify a final conclusion about the financial sustainability of the entire economy.

Frequently asked questions

Does a negative audit mean the project is unviable?

No. The conclusion applies to the mechanisms, configurations and conditions tested. It does not automatically extend to every possible economic design.

What did the 72 FIGHTEX repeat runs show?

In the A6.3-R investigation on engine 0.8.1, technical checks passed with accepted limitations, but none of the tested options met the economic criteria.

What is a useful next step after a negative result?

Document the boundaries of the investigation and consider substantively new hypotheses. Revising the economic design requires separate approval and verification.