A review tests an existing thesis
A perpetual-position review asks whether the current evidence still supports a user-provided thesis and its risk assumptions. It is not an instruction to hold, add or reverse a position. The terminal does not fetch a private exchange account or execute a change. Inputs should be checked by the user before research is submitted.
Confirm the input contract
Verify the instrument, position direction, entry reference, size units, research horizon and any planned stop or target. Distinguish user-entered values from observed market values. If a quantity or fee assumption is missing, the result should identify the gap rather than silently substitute a convincing number. Different contracts and quote units require different calculations.
Separate price, mark price and funding
An exchange’s mark-price and funding data describe specific market mechanisms. They are not interchangeable with the last trade or a fixed future cost. Historical funding is an observation, not a promise of the next settlement. Review the source, timestamp, rate interval and estimation assumptions before interpreting a cost figure.
Challenge the reason for staying in the trade
List what still supports the original view, the strongest contrary observation and the condition that would require reassessment. A change in market structure matters even if an unrealized profit is positive. Conversely, an adverse tick alone may not settle a question defined on closed candles. Use the declared horizon and confirmation rule consistently.
What the result cannot establish
Without validated inputs and an appropriate model, a research review cannot establish liquidation safety, executable fill prices or a reliable probability of profit. Missing evidence, stale data or unsupported assumptions can justify waiting or revising the question. Compare the waiting case with your own decision process; never copy its teaching levels as real orders.