QuantForge

A Research Tribunal for Quantitative Claims

A research tribunal that tests whether quantitative claims deserve trust.

A persuasive backtest can still be wrong. It may hide selection bias, weak benchmarks, unrealistic costs, large drawdowns, or evidence that cannot be reconstructed. I built QuantForge to make those objections part of the experiment instead of leaving them for the end of a research report.

The fastest way to see the project is the offline flagship demonstration. From an installed development environment with the protected C++ repository beside this one, run:

./scripts/run_judge_demo.sh ../cpp-event-driven-backtester /private/tmp/quantforge-judge-demo

The wrapper checks its dependencies, builds the trusted C++ v1.0.0 executable outside both source trees, runs the deterministic mock-provider tribunal, writes machine and human reports, and verifies the exported evidence. It does not make a network request or modify either source tree.

OFFLINE GOVERNED DEMONSTRATION — MOCK PROVIDER

What QuantForge is

QuantForge turns a quantitative claim into a governed experiment. A Researcher proposes a protocol, a Methodology Reviewer challenges it, and a human must approve it before the experiment constitution is locked. Only then can the trusted C++ engine produce numerical evidence. Statistical, adversarial, and reproducibility reviews follow. Deterministic code validates the evidence and computes the strongest permitted verdict; a Chair can explain that verdict but cannot replace it.

This separation is deliberate. Models are useful for proposing methods, looking for weaknesses, and explaining results. They are not the numerical authority, cannot invent admissible evidence, and do not choose the verdict.

Why I built it

Backtests are unusually good at telling convincing stories. A large return is easy to notice, while the choices behind it—data boundaries, candidate selection, timing assumptions, costs, benchmark parity, and statistical corrections—are easier to miss. By the time a result reaches a polished report, those choices can be difficult to reconstruct.

I wanted a research process that could preserve disagreement. QuantForge records the approved protocol, evidence identities, reviewer objections, state transitions, and verdict inputs as one replayable case. The goal is not to find more strategies. It is to decide how much trust the current evidence can support.

The global problem

The reliability problem is not limited to one asset class or one market. Researchers everywhere work with noisy data and many plausible choices. Looking at enough strategies, periods, parameters, or benchmarks can produce an attractive result by chance. If costs, failed trials, contradictory evidence, or provenance are omitted, a backtest may look much stronger than the underlying evidence.

QuantForge addresses that general research-governance problem with explicit constitutions, narrow evidence admission, adversarial review, deterministic verdict limits, and reproducible exports. Its current evidence is synthetic and validates the system boundary, not a profitable trading claim.

Flagship demonstration

The flagship case begins with a deliberately attractive result from the protected deterministic C++ engine:

• total return: 185.43%;
• benchmark return: 84.46%;
• excess return: 100.97% after declared costs.

That is not the end of the case. The admitted evidence also reports:

• maximum drawdown: −42.47%;
• corrected reality-check p-value: 0.308691 against a 0.05 criterion;
• bootstrap probability of loss: 25.2% against a 10% limit;
• a 95% bootstrap return interval whose lower bound is below zero;
• material concentration and regime objections.

The numerical result is real output from the frozen synthetic fixture, but it is not evidence of live profitability. The role prose is deterministic fixture output. After replay and independent reconstruction pass, the code-owned verdict is still INCONCLUSIVE. That verdict is meaningful: the point estimate is attractive, but the claim as written asks for statistical reliability and robustness that the evidence does not establish.

Architecture

flowchart LR
    claim["Research claim"] --> researcher["Researcher<br/>protocol proposal"]
    researcher --> method["Methodology review"]
    method --> approval["Human approval"]
    approval --> constitution["Locked constitution"]
    constitution --> cpp["Trusted C++ execution"]
    cpp --> stats["Statistical review"]
    stats --> adversarial["Adversarial review"]
    adversarial --> repro["Reproducibility review"]
    repro --> verdict["Code-owned verdict"]
    verdict --> chair["Chair explanation"]
    chair --> export["Export and replay"]

    authority["Deterministic QuantForge authority<br/>workflow, schemas, evidence admission, verdict policy"]
    evidence[("C++ numerical evidence")]
    audit[("Durable evidence and audit state")]

    approval -. governed by .-> authority
    constitution -. locked by .-> authority
    cpp --> evidence
    evidence --> audit
    researcher -. recorded in .-> audit
    method -. recorded in .-> audit
    stats -. recorded in .-> audit
    adversarial -. recorded in .-> audit
    repro -. recorded in .-> audit
    authority --> verdict
    audit --> verdict
    export --> audit

    classDef model fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#356ac3,color:#102a43;
    classDef deterministic fill:#e8f5e9,stroke:#2e7d32,color:#17351a;
    classDef numeric fill:#fff3e0,stroke:#ef6c00,color:#4e2600;
    classDef durable fill:#f3e5f5,stroke:#7b1fa2,color:#32103f;
    class researcher,method,stats,adversarial,repro,chair model;
    class approval,constitution,verdict,authority deterministic;
    class cpp,evidence numeric;
    class audit,export durable;

Blue nodes are model-generated proposals, reviews, or explanations. Green nodes are deterministic QuantForge authority. Orange nodes are trusted numerical execution and evidence. Purple nodes are the durable evidence and audit boundary. The QuantForge architecture overview is a permanent technical reference for this diagram and its authority boundaries.

What the model may and may not do

The model may	The model may not
Propose a falsifiable experiment protocol	Approve the experiment for the human
Review methodology and identify weaknesses	Change the locked constitution
Interpret evidence through role-specific schemas	Execute the numerical engine
Raise statistical, adversarial, and reproducibility objections	Create or alter admissible evidence
Explain the already computed outcome	Advance workflow state or strengthen the verdict

Provider outputs pass strict schemas, identity checks, evidence-reference rules, revision checks, and role-specific validation before code accepts them. The provider has no shell, filesystem, broker, or market-data tools.

Run the offline demonstration

Supported environment

• Linux or macOS;
• Python 3.12 or newer;
• CMake and a C++20 compiler;
• Git;
• the QuantForge development environment or an installed quantforge command;
• a clean checkout of the protected C++ repository with the exact v1.0.0 tag.

Install the reviewed development lock from this repository:

python3.12 -m venv .venv
.venv/bin/python -m pip install --require-hashes -r requirements-dev.lock
.venv/bin/python -m pip install -e . --no-deps --no-build-isolation

Then run the one-command demonstration:

./scripts/run_judge_demo.sh ../cpp-event-driven-backtester /private/tmp/quantforge-judge-demo

The output directory must not already exist and must be outside both repositories. On Linux, /tmp may be used instead of /private/tmp. Set QUANTFORGE_CLI to an installed executable when you do not want the wrapper to use .venv/bin/quantforge.

For lower-level control, the existing quantforge demo run and quantforge demo verify commands are documented in the governed tribunal runbook.

Verify the evidence and reconstruction

The judge wrapper runs verification automatically. To repeat it independently:

.venv/bin/quantforge demo verify /private/tmp/quantforge-judge-demo

The artifact set contains:

• case-spec.json — the claim, assumptions, controls, criteria, and failure gates;
• tribunal-result.json — the complete machine-readable case and identities;
• tribunal-report.md — the human-readable report;
• evidence-manifest.json — key facts and suggested capture order;
• case-package/ — the reconstructable durable export;
• demo-manifest.json — the closed SHA-256 inventory.

Verification rejects missing, extra, substituted, stale, symlinked, or hash-mismatched artifacts. It then reconstructs the final case, verifies the audit replay, and recomputes the stable demonstration identity.

Comparative evaluation

The versioned benchmark contains 24 cases covering research defects, evidence attacks, authority violations, reproducibility failures, and one sound control. It compares a single-agent baseline, a planner–reviewer baseline, and the real six-role QuantForge tribunal under the same fixture provider and budgets.

.venv/bin/quantforge evaluation compare --subset full \
  --output-dir /private/tmp/quantforge-evaluation
.venv/bin/quantforge evaluation verify-export /private/tmp/quantforge-evaluation
.venv/bin/quantforge evaluation replay /private/tmp/quantforge-evaluation
.venv/bin/quantforge evaluation report /private/tmp/quantforge-evaluation --format human

All current results are labeled OFFLINE DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION — MOCK PROVIDER. They validate routing, scoring, schema enforcement, persistence, replay, and authority boundaries. They do not measure live model intelligence or establish global superiority. See the evaluation methodology.

How Codex and GPT-5.6 were used

I used Codex and GPT-5.6 as engineering collaborators under a student-directed architecture. They helped turn requirements into bounded implementation slices, draft and review code, generate test cases, trace trust boundaries, challenge assumptions, investigate failures, and tighten technical documentation. I made the architecture, scope, governance, release, and merge decisions and reviewed the resulting code and evidence.

The build sequence was deliberate: first the deterministic C++ engine, then the QuantForge trust-boundary foundation, the six-role tribunal, the official structured OpenAI provider, the governed offline demonstration, and finally the comparative benchmark and baselines. Adversarial remediation, independent audit records, hash-locked dependencies, and protected GitHub workflows were used to keep AI-assisted development reviewable. Codex and GPT-5.6 were collaborators, not the project author or an autonomous release authority.

Repository structure

Path	Purpose
src/quantforge/domain/	Strict claim, constitution, evidence, review, and verdict models
src/quantforge/roles/	Six role contracts, request construction, validation, and orchestration
src/quantforge/engine/	Narrow trusted adapter for the protected C++ v1.0.0 release
src/quantforge/storage/	SQLite persistence, export, integrity checks, and reconstruction
src/quantforge/evaluation/	Versioned 24-case comparative benchmark and baselines
src/quantforge/demo/	Flagship governed demonstration and artifact verification
docs/	Architecture, governance, security, provider, evidence, and operator references
audit/	Independent audit and release-verification records

Testing and evidence

Version 0.1.0 remains the current package identity and communicates an audited research-governance foundation, not a production trading system or an empirical financial result.

The repository gate runs formatting, Ruff, strict mypy, the full branch-aware pytest suite, a 90% combined governance-critical coverage floor, higher provider/orchestrator floors, malicious-input regressions, repository and documentation contracts, secret scanning, CFF validation, and source and wheel inspection:

scripts/quality.sh

The protected C++ v1.0.0 release is identified by an annotated, protected tag and verified asset hashes. GitHub's native immutable-release flag for that older release remains false; the release is not described as GitHub-native immutable. QuantForge v0.1.0 is GitHub-native immutable. Exact tag, target, asset, and hash records are in the OpenAI Build Week submission baseline verification.

Offline mock versus live OpenAI status

The repository contains an official OpenAI provider using strict structured outputs, explicit model selection, bounded retries, provenance capture, and no tool access. It is disabled by default. The flagship demonstration and published comparative results use deterministic fixture providers and make no OpenAI call.

Funded live contract verification is still pending. Comparative live transport is also not enabled in this phase. Until those steps are separately authorized and recorded, this project makes no claim about live GPT-5.6 output quality, latency, cost, or reliability. See the OpenAI provider runbook and future live evaluation runbook.

Limitations

• The flagship evidence is deterministic synthetic data, not empirical market evidence.
• The demo role responses are fixtures, not live model responses.
• The project is research governance software, not investment advice or a profitability claim.
• There is no broker connectivity, order submission, live trading, external market-data ingestion, retrieval system, web dashboard, or production deployment.
• Audit chains are locally tamper-evident but are not externally signed or timestamped.
• A trusted host and the protected C++ release boundary are still part of the threat model.

More detail is in Limitations, the Security Model, and the Threat Model.

Future development

The next bounded steps are funded live OpenAI contract verification, an approved live comparative evaluation, external reproduction, signed or independently anchored audit evidence, and broader empirical validation under reviewed data licenses. Those are future research tasks, not current platform capabilities.

Detailed technical documentation

• Architecture overview
• Detailed technical architecture
• Experiment constitution
• Governance
• Evidence model
• Verdict policy
• Role contracts
• Storage model
• C++ integration contract
• Deterministic semantics
• Operator runbook
• Release policy
• Phase 1 independent audit

QuantForge is licensed under Apache License 2.0. See LICENSE and NOTICE.