Market Strength Radar V4 Update. The system is growing, but now comes the part that matters most. Proving that it actually works better. I haven't shared much about the development of V4 lately, but behind the scenes, I have continued working on what is becoming a much more comprehensive market research system. And I want to share where the project stands, what has been accomplished, what is still missing and what I am trying to achieve. First, an important distinction. V3 remains my active production system. V4 is still in development and validation. I am not replacing a functioning system simply because I have built something more complicated. V4 has to prove that its additional information actually improves how I identify market leadership and potential trading opportunities. So what has changed? The original Market Strength Radar was designed to identify stocks, sectors and themes showing relative strength. It helped me understand where leadership was concentrated and where new opportunities might be developing. V4 takes that idea much further. Instead of only asking which stocks are strong today, I want to understand how that strength developed, whether it is accelerating or weakening, how broadly it is spreading and what tends to happen afterward. The new research architecture now includes improved price adjustment analysis, shorter term relative strength, momentum velocity and acceleration, stock rankings relative to their peers, volume behavior and volatility conditions. It also examines whether leadership is spreading across more companies within a sector or becoming increasingly concentrated in a few names. Another important addition is the relationship between relative strength and actual chart structure. A stock can have excellent relative strength while being badly extended above support or sitting directly below major resistance. I want the system to recognize that difference rather than treating every strong stock as an equally attractive opportunity. But one of the biggest improvements is historical market intelligence. V4 can preserve historical market observations and examine how conditions change between them. That opens the door to questions that a simple daily dashboard cannot answer. For example, when a stock's relative strength begins accelerating, does that usually lead to better future performance? When a sector starts attracting broader participation, are we seeing the beginning of sustainable leadership or just a temporary rebound? When relative strength remains high but momentum begins deteriorating, does that increase the probability of a correction? And does a strong technical structure near support produce better outcomes than an equally strong stock that is already extended? These are the questions I ultimately want V4 to answer. Now comes the difficult part. Testing the evidence. We have already established several predefined research groups representing different changes in relative strength, momentum and market behavior. The historical data collection and verification process is also progressing. As of October 27, 466 out of 578 historical source cases have passed independent evidence checks. That represents approximately 81% of this particular verification stage. I want to emphasize that this does not mean V4 is 81% finished or that its predictions are 81% accurate. It means we are making progress toward having historical information we can trust enough to analyze. And believe me, this part has been much more complicated than simply calculating indicators. Historical market data can be misleading if you are not careful. Stock splits, dividends, ticker changes, incomplete price histories and different market closing times can all distort the results. There is also a problem I take very seriously: using information in a historical test that would not actually have been available when a trading decision was supposed to happen. That can make a system look much better on paper than it would have performed in reality. We have identified cases where historical observations cannot legitimately be treated as executable signals because the complete information was only available afterward. I would rather identify those problems now than publish impressive performance statistics that cannot survive proper verification. Another limitation is the amount of historical evidence. The system has preserved real market snapshots, but the observation history is not yet extensive or consistent enough to establish reliable results across different market conditions. Restoring that regular historical tracking is one of the next priorities. I need genuine observations collected over time, not reconstructed signals that pretend we knew something before we actually did. So what comes next? The immediate work is to finish the remaining historical source verification, resolve the data quality exceptions and restore consistent market observations. After that, the next major stage is measuring what actually happened after different market conditions and stock structures appeared. Not just whether a stock went up. I want to examine how far it moved, how much it declined along the way, how often a setup failed and whether the same behavior appeared consistently across different groups of stocks. Then those results need to be compared against appropriate alternatives and the existing V3 system. That is the real objective of V4. I don't want another dashboard with more indicators, more complicated scores and more attractive colors. I want a system that can tell me whether a particular combination of market conditions has historically provided useful information, how reliable that evidence is and when that information is no longer worth trusting. And I want to know when the system is wrong. Because understanding false signals, failed setups and missed opportunities is just as important as studying the winners. Where do we stand today? The research foundation is substantially built. The relative strength, momentum, sector participation, volume, volatility and historical analysis capabilities are in place. But the empirical performance testing is not finished. We do not yet have validated success rates or proof that V4 produces better investment or trading outcomes. And until that changes, V3 stays in production. V4 stays in research. No automatic promotion. No pretending that additional complexity is an improvement. No performance claims before the evidence supports them. I have invested a lot of time into this project, and I want to build it correctly, even if that means spending more time questioning the system than adding new features. My goal has always been the same. Find genuine market leadership earlier, understand when that leadership is strengthening or deteriorating, and identify where the chart offers a reasonable opportunity to act. The dashboard tells me where to look. The historical evidence should eventually help me understand which conditions deserve more confidence. And the individual chart still determines whether there is an actionable opportunity. V4 is progressing. But it still has to earn its place. Price first. Relative strength second. Theme confirmation last. My market journal, not financial advice.