State what is being tested
Define the selection rule and what “stable” means before looking at the held-out evidence.
Examples connect isolated concepts into complete reasoning chains. Public examples use synthetic or explicitly publishable data and emphasize interpretation rather than headline results.
This first complete public case study follows a synthetic selected candidate from development through reserved evidence, time-aware checks, uncertainty analysis, limitations, and the next research question.
Define the selection rule and what “stable” means before looking at the held-out evidence.
Use synthetic candidate data and preserve a holdout boundary so the example can teach the difference clearly.
Inspect the selected candidate in the context of the broader family instead of presenting one result in isolation.
Compare multiple held-out windows and sequence-sensitive diagnostics rather than treating one split as definitive.
Describe where the evidence agrees or disagrees and avoid converting a diagnostic into a certainty claim.
Document selection effects, assumptions, data limitations, and the next question that remains unanswered.
Follow the complete chain instead of stopping at the setup skeleton.
Open the synthetic case study →Move a synthetic historical cutoff and compare an information-safe chart with an explicitly invalid view that leaves future bars visible.
See how the admissible chart shrinks when the replay cutoff moves backward.
Future bars stay faintly visible only in the comparison panel so the error is obvious.
Use the slider or keyboard, then follow the Method and How-To links.
Open the replay-boundary example →Docs answers “what does this do?” and Methods answers “what does this mean?” Examples answer “how do these ideas fit together in a complete research argument?” That is a different job and deserves a dedicated format.