UNDERWRITER
Every gate has a reason. Every order has a record. Read what the agent considered, inspect its open risk, and follow the evidence from a decision to the broker.
This desk refreshes every four seconds. Historical totals and the complete archive live in History.
Rejections from the latest journal window, grouped by their recorded reason. A decision can carry several codes; reason counts can exceed rejected decisions. Open any code to trace it through the full history. Service failures need their own investigation.
Every position is a two-leg vertical: a short leg that collects the premium and a long leg that caps the loss. Maximum loss is width minus credit, known before entry and bounded. Nothing here can lose more than the figure in its own row.
Chronological, newest first: what was considered, what happened to it, and the codes that decided. A strategy whose rejections are invisible is a strategy nobody can check.
Every submission carries a unique client order ID, and a credit spread is submitted at a negative net limit price — the broker's sign convention for money received.
The official figure is what the paper broker reports. The shadow figure is what the same trades are worth after crossing the quoted spread. They measure different things, so they are drawn separately and never added together.
Account equity as the broker reports it. Paper multi-leg fills simulate against modified indicative quotes on the Basic plan, and the fill model is undocumented — this is a number we report, not one we trust.
The same fills repriced with explicit slippage: exits marked across the quoted bid/ask rather than at the paper engine's price. Lower by construction. This is the honest figure, and the one to judge.
Why two numbers. Underwriter runs on the free Basic plan for the whole contest: IEX equity data rather than consolidated SIP, option trades delayed fifteen minutes, and indicative option quotes rather than OPRA NBBO. Alpaca's paper engine checks a spread's marketability against those altered quotes, and the multi-leg fill model is not documented anywhere.
A paper P&L built on that is a plausible number with an unknown error bar. Publishing it alone would be a claim we cannot support, so the conservative series sits beside it and the gap between them is left visible rather than reconciled away.