Before launch, based on the current UI, I want to pressure-test a simple framework for using price targets responsibly: (1) target is a scenario, not a promise, (2) confidence should change sizing or skip , (3) always sanity-check volatility/regime, (4) decide rules for entry/exit before the open.
What am I missing? If you ve been burned by AI picks, what went wrong?
Context: Most AI stock research tools are dressed-up ChatGPTs, or worse, hallucinating bots. At MarketCrunch AI, we built a deep-learning quantitative AI model that analyzes 300 million+ points daily - including macro, price action, news - to give you 1-click next-day + weekly price targets. Our AI shows its work: each price target has confidence markers, backtest, and clear drivers to help you can decide on trade / size / skip. Our fans say, its Bloomberg terminal for Robinhood users.

Backtests are where most tools get hand-wavy. What evidence do you show so users can judge if this is overfit vs legit?
@islam_toba Totally fair. We’re opinionated about showing receipts without fake certainty. If you’re evaluating rigor, what’s your minimum bar: walk-forward tests, out-of-sample windows, regime splits, or a live/paper tracker that updates daily?