How Analysis History Works
Every CopyTradia technical analysis describes the market at a specific moment: its structure, possible scenarios, key price levels, and the conditions that could confirm or weaken those scenarios.
Analysis History shows how those assessments compare with what actually happened next.
01 — Preserve
We preserve the original analysis
We record the market reading as it was published, without adding information from later market movements.
02 — Compare
We compare it with what happened
When the next analysis is published, we examine how the market evolved between the two dates. We compare the original and subsequent charts to identify the important movements and changes in market conditions.
03 — Evaluate
We evaluate the original reading
We ask one question: Did the original analysis help us understand what the market actually did? Each comparison receives a verdict:
Yes: The original reading correctly explained the main market movement.
Partially: The reading was useful but missed or misinterpreted something important.
No: The reading failed to explain the main movement or was contradicted by the market.
A Yes doesn't mean every scenario came true. It means the original analysis provided a useful and accurate understanding of how the market developed.
04 — Score
We calculate the historical score
Each verdict contributes to an overall score out of 100:
Yes = 1 point
Partially = 0.5 points
No = 0 points
The score is the average of these evaluations, expressed out of 100. It updates as new analyses are assessed.
Historical Analysis Relevance Score
This score, expressed out of 100, measures the extent to which CopyTradia's analyses made it possible to understand and characterize market developments observed after their publication, based on the structures, scenarios, and conditions originally established.
Retrospectives are based on AI-assisted evaluations that compare the original analyses with subsequent market developments. They do not constitute an independent audit.
Three real examples
One real comparison for each verdict: Yes, Partially and No. You can explore each result, read the original analysis, compare the charts side by side, and understand why the verdict was given.
BTC/USDC
1 June → 4 June 2026
Verdict · Yes
The original reading correctly explained the main market movement.
A · Original analysis · 1 June 2026
Daily · Weekly pivots. Click to enlarge.
B · Next analysis · 4 June 2026
Same chart, three days later. Click to enlarge.
Why did this analysis receive a Yes?
On 1 June, CopyTradia described a Bitcoin caught in a downtrend. Price was around 73,600 USDC, below the weekly pivot (74,685), and the daily low had already been broken on the 4H chart: the rebound attempt was losing credibility.
The analysis therefore favored a continuation of the decline. It set a precise condition: a daily close below the 72,200–72,400 USDC zone would confirm the failure of the stabilization attempt. It also named the 69,233 USDC level (weekly EMA 200) as an important reference where approaching it could provoke a reaction.
What happened next?
The 1 June session ended around 71,400 USDC, below the zone: the condition was met. The following sessions closed around 66,700 and then around 64,100, with large bearish candles and no stabilizing rebound. Price crossed the 69,233 level with no visible pause on the daily chart, down to a low of 61,342 USDC. On 4 June, it stood around 63,900.
Why a Yes, even though the decline went beyond the first reference levels?
The evaluation does not ask whether CopyTradia anticipated the exact price reached. It asks whether the original reading made it possible to understand and qualify the market’s subsequent development.
Here, the direction (bearish continuation), the condition that confirmed it and the first important reference level had been correctly identified. The analysis identified that first level without guaranteeing a reaction, and without characterizing any continuation of the decline beyond it. But it explained why the market was continuing to fall rather than stabilizing. It is the relevance of this main reading that justifies the Yes.
ETH/USDC
15 June → 19 June 2026
Verdict · Partially
The reading was useful but missed or misinterpreted something important.
A · Original analysis · 15 June 2026
Daily · Weekly pivots. Click to enlarge.
B · Next analysis · 19 June 2026
Same chart, four days later. Click to enlarge.
Why was this analysis rated Partially?
On 15 June, Ethereum was rebounding from its early-June low (around 1,505 USDC). CopyTradia saw a counter-trend rebound rather than a reversal: price remained below its main daily moving averages (EMA 50 at 1,975.27, EMA 200 at 2,467.32) and was facing the 1,770–1,781 USDC resistance zone.
The analysis left two possibilities open: a simple pause before the decline resumed, or the start of a broader recovery. A daily close above the zone would confirm the strength of the rebound, and the rejection was placed on the zone itself.
What happened next?
Price moved above the zone and reached 1,848.73 USDC. The daily closes of 15 and 16 June (around 1,795 and 1,790) were above the zone, then price fell back below it on 17 June (close around 1,750) and stood around 1,695 on 19 June (session in progress), near the weekly pivot. It stayed well below its moving averages: the rebound did not lead to a reversal.
Please note: the sources do not establish when the 1,848.73 high occurred relative to the publication of the analysis on 15 June at 15:03 UTC.
Why Partially rather than Yes?
The main reading was right: a counter-trend rebound, contained below the averages and then partly reversed, and a key zone that was well identified. But the analysis had two weaknesses. It did not define what would distinguish a lasting breakout from a temporary overshoot. And it placed the rejection on the zone, whereas the turnaround came after an overshoot up to 1,848.73, a phase that could be mistaken for the start of a recovery and that the reading did not characterize.
The reading therefore helped to understand the general structure of the market, but not an important episode of its development. That is why it received a Partially verdict rather than Yes.
NEAR/USDC
29 October → 2 November 2026
Verdict · No
The reading failed to explain the main movement or was contradicted by the market.
A · Original analysis · 29 October 2026
4H · EMA 50/200 & Bollinger Bands. Click to enlarge.
B · Next analysis · 2 November 2026
Same chart, four days later. Click to enlarge.
Why did this analysis receive a No?
On 29 October, NEAR/USDC was trading around 4.73 USDC after a rebound from the 4.25–4.32 USDC zone, a confluence point anchored on the weekly EMA 200 (4.31). CopyTradia read this as a stabilization: bearish pressure appeared neutralized (RSI and ADX back toward neutral) and the structure was shifting from a directional pullback to a range. It considered this the only plausible scenario at that moment.
The immediate stake was the 4.73–4.94 zone. The analysis set an invalidation condition: a daily close below 4.25 USDC would call the stabilization into question.
What happened next?
The market did not confirm the stabilization. During the 29 October session itself, NEAR lost the zone and closed around 4.05 USDC, then reached a low near 3.90 USDC the next day. The rebound that followed (toward 4.3–4.5, with a last close at 4.28 before the next analysis) did not regain the 4.73–4.94 zone; on 2 November, price was back around 4.05 (session in progress).
Why a No, even though the invalidation level had been identified?
Identifying a level that would invalidate a scenario is useful: it shows when a reading no longer holds. But it does not make the initial reading correct. Here, CopyTradia favored a stabilization; the main movement was a resumption of the decline that contradicted it. The analysis made it possible to recognize that its scenario no longer held, but it had not qualified the dynamic that would dominate the period.
It is therefore not the breach of 4.25 that justifies the No, it is the failure of the central reading.
What distinguishes this No from a Partially verdict: for ETH, the central reading (a counter-trend rebound) remained right, and only part of the episode was poorly characterized. For NEAR, the central reading itself, a stabilized market, was contradicted by the main movement.