Fixed price, fixed scope, fixed turnaround. You know the cost before we start and it does not move.
5 business days
We read your code against the full bias checklist and tell you where it sees the future. No re-run, so you get the defects rather than a corrected number.
2 weeks
Everything above, then the diagnostics, then we correct what we found and run it again. You finish with a number you can stand behind.
Send it anyway and I will tell you which one fits, or that neither does. That costs nothing and takes one email.
The rough split: Reality Check if the money in it is yours and you are happy to do the fixing yourself. The Assay if someone else's money is in it, or if you need a corrected figure you can put in front of an investor, an allocator, or a risk committee.
Send it and askEvery engagement is covered by a mutual NDA. What we find is yours, and nothing about your strategy is published unless you ask us to.
Code at a fixed commit, the data it needs, and the result you are claiming.
If we cannot, that is the finding, and we stop rather than hunt bias in a number that does not exist.
Every finding arrives with a file, a line, and a script you can run yourself.
The report and the scripts. On the Assay, the corrected number too.
The clock starts when the materials arrive, not when you pay. Reality Check is paid up front. The Assay is half up front and half on delivery.
We do not improve your strategy. That is a different job, and doing both would mean auditing our own changes.
We do not tell you whether to trade anything. Not a service we offer, and not a line we will cross.
We do not audit your data vendor. We check how the data is used, not whether the vendor got it right.
A clean audit is a valid outcome and is delivered in full, with the diagnostics, the per-year table and the concentration figures that show what was tested. The fee buys the examination and the evidence, not a defect, and it is not contingent on finding one.
We stop there and report it, and the fee is payable in full. A number that cannot be regenerated from your own code is a more serious finding than any bias we could go on to look for, and hunting bias in a number that does not exist would spend your budget on nothing.
Runnable code at a pinned commit, the data it needs or credentials to fetch it, the exact claimed figures with period and benchmark, the configuration that produced them, and anything you already suspect. That last one is optional and the most useful thing you can include.
Yes. Every engagement is covered by a mutual NDA sent before you share any code, and nothing about you, your strategy or the existence of the engagement is published without your written consent. The NDA also carries a conflict declaration: we trade our own leveraged ETF strategy and undertake not to trade on or use anything we see in your code.
No, and not as a matter of policy rather than caution. We are not licensed financial advisers. An audit assesses whether a number is honest, never whether a strategy is good.
That is a separate engagement and we are happy to quote for it, but not alongside the audit. Changing the strategy and then assessing it would mean marking our own work, which makes the audit worth nothing to you.
Send the strategy, what it claims, and why you want it checked. We will tell you which tier fits, or that neither does.
Or write to contact@pyriteresearch.com directly.