Consistency rules: evaluation gate or payout gate?

The published form is a ratio: biggest winning day ÷ profit must stay at or under the allowed share. The denominator is the plan's choice (total net profit, profit since the last payout, or the printed profit target itself) but where a firm publishes its breach mechanic, that mechanic resolves to one floor: required profit = biggest day ÷ allowed share. That is where the worked example's $2,500 comes from: $1,000 ÷ 0.40.

The ratio is asymmetric on the way down. A losing day cuts the denominator while the $1,000 day stands in the numerator, so the same red day that costs you money also widens the example's $900 gap. That kills the tempting fix (sizing up to close the gap fast) twice over: a loss widens the gap, and a win big enough to matter can print a new biggest day and push the floor past $2,500.

Where a plan carries an evaluation percentage, crossing it changes what a pass requires: on the plans that publish the consequence, the effective profit target rises to biggest day ÷ share and the pass waits until total profit reaches it. In the example, a printed $1,500 target quietly becomes $2,500. The account is past the number on the sales page and still short of passing.

That deferral mechanic is verified only where a firm's own page states it; a plan whose breach clause fails the account outright would look identical on a comparison badge, one flag standing in for a whole brand. Percentages also differ inside a single brand, which sells plans with no evaluation percentage alongside plans with a tight one, so the percentage belongs to a plan and a phase and no firm-level flag can carry it for you.

On funded plans that publish a percentage, the gate sits at the payout request: the request is held until the ratio is back inside the limit. Worked from the example's funded side, $1,000 ÷ $1,600 of profit since the last reset is 62.5%, over a 40% limit, so the request waits until that profit reaches $2,500. The same $900 of additional net profit now stands between you and money the dashboard already shows.

Three things vary by plan and are worth reading before your first request: whether the calculation resets after each approved payout (a reset means your next biggest day sets a fresh floor from zero), whether the percentage itself steps upward with each successive payout, and, on at least one covered plan, whether the percentage gates only one of two payout routes that the trader elects at request time. Each variant changes when you should time a request, which is exactly the decision this rule governs.

The reference below keeps two states apart: a structured percentage recorded for a phase, and 'no structured percentage'. The second means a figure could not be resolved from published terms, not that the firm confirmed none. Before spending on an account because a review promised no consistency rule, find your exact plan and phase in the firm's own rule article; where the row stays unresolved, price the account as if a gate exists and ask the firm for the answer in writing.