Brokers and trading infrastructure
Evidence to collect for a trade-execution dispute
This post is also available in Persian ←

For an execution dispute, separate submission, acceptance, fills and reference prices. Align timestamps and instrument terms; one price-gap screenshot does not establish fault.
When an execution price or outcome differs from expectations, first preserve evidence and define the discrepancy precisely. An adverse result alone does not show whether an instruction was wrong, the market changed or a host departed from its terms. A useful report enables those possibilities to be examined rather than announcing a verdict in advance.
Submission, acceptance and execution differ
Software submission time, host receipt, order acceptance and execution may be distinct. A local success message might confirm only transmission. For an order with multiple fills, retain each quantity and price as well as cancelled or remaining amounts. Order identifiers and fill identifiers need not be the same.
Read instrument specifications for the relevant date
Order type, direction, quantity, contract size, minimum increment and trigger-price rules matter. Bid, ask, last-traded and reference prices can serve different purposes. A similar instrument’s chart at another host is not conclusive evidence of incorrect execution without aligning these specifications.
A hypothetical invalid comparison
Suppose a chart screenshot shows the last traded price but the terms trigger an instruction using the relevant opposite-side quote. The difference may require explanation, but it does not automatically prove a contractual breach. This example dismisses no actual dispute; it shows why the two pricing bases must be aligned before drawing conclusions.
What belongs in an evidence pack?
- A concise account of expected and observed results without unsupported allegations.
- Non-sensitive account and order identifiers, market and instrument specifications.
- Timestamps with time zones and the source of each timestamp.
- Fill exports, error messages and official terms relevant to that date.
- A list of unknowns and a specific question for each one.
Preserve original evidence
Keep raw exports and messages securely and create redacted copies for submission. Cropping must not remove essential timing or context. Never put passwords, login tokens, API secrets or unrelated identity information in a public ticket. Record when evidence was obtained separately from when the event occurred.
Make the review request specific
Instead of merely stating that a trade was wrong, ask which event, rule and price were used for execution. Record the official route, case reference and deadlines stated in the terms. This article sets no universal legal deadline; rights and further routes depend on the agreement and relevant jurisdiction.
Keep the issue open until a supported response
An initial reply is not the same as resolution. If a correction occurs, separately reconcile its effect on reports and balances. Collecting evidence guarantees no compensation, and an independent reviewer may need more information. Consult available routes in the help center, and consider execution records alongside other evidence when reviewing accounts. This is neither case adjudication nor a claim of automatic product dispute handling.
Compare the track record, drawdown and costs of PAMM, MAM and copy-trading accounts, with the source and time of every figure.
Review and compare accounts Calculate scenarios and costsSubmit a verifiable track record so investors can review it against transparent criteria.
Discuss cooperationhttps://pamm.ir/blog/?r=IU98wOw7U4eI-CcpAPqtZg
Rate this post
No ratings yet.
Related posts
Take demo seriously: the bridge most people skip
A demo account is where you test strategy and broker infrastructure for free; taken seriously, it prevents the most expensive live mistakes.
Read moreThe real costs of trading: spread, commission and swap
The three main costs of every trade and how together they build your true cost — with the details that like to hide.
Read moreBroker regulation: what does it actually guarantee?
Licence, supervision and client-asset segregation; what regulation guarantees — and what it cannot.
Read more
Comments (0)
No comments yet — be the first.