NR7 is the only strategy on this site with a losing risk to reward ratio
Every one of Tenachine's 22 published strategy studies has an aggregate risk to reward ratio above the 1.0 breakeven line, except one. NR7 volatility breakout sits at 0.6964, and the gap to the next lowest study is not small.
NR7 volatility breakout is the only one of Tenachine's 22 published strategy studies with an aggregate risk to reward ratio below 1.0, meaning the only one where the study's own trades lost more in total dollars than they made. Its ratio is 0.6964. The next lowest of the 22, inside bar breakout, sits at 1.0005, just barely above the line. Every other study published here clears 1.0 by a wider margin still.
The ratio itself is gross profit divided by gross loss, pooled across every trade in the study rather than averaged ticker by ticker. Below 1.0, the losing trades cost more in total than the winning trades made, whatever the win rate says. NR7's win rate is 10.15 percent, the lowest of any strategy published here, and its average return across 200 completed tickers is negative 0.09 percent, a loss. The 0.6964 figure is not a rounding error sitting just under the line. It is meaningfully below it, and the study is the clear outlier in a set of 22.
The low win rate that did not pay off
A win rate this low is not automatically a problem. Tenachine's guide on reading a win rate covers the golden cross study, which wins only 19.59 percent of trades and still returned 9.02 percent, because its risk to reward ratio, 2.3193, more than compensated. NR7 is the same kind of bet at a more extreme setting, a 10.15 percent win rate, and the payoff never arrived to cover it. Its risk to reward ratio is 0.6964, below breakeven rather than well above it. A low win rate needs a correspondingly large gap between average winners and average losers to work, and NR7 is the clearest case published here of that gap failing to show up. Golden cross and NR7 are both trying the same style of bet, win rarely, win big when it happens, and only one of the two studies shows the payoff actually landing large enough to matter.
A wider coverage gap too
20 of the 220 tickers in NR7's universe failed to produce a usable backtest, a 9.09 percent failure rate. Most of the other 21 studies lose exactly 6 tickers to failed runs, 2.7 percent, so NR7's gap is roughly three and a half times the typical rate, though still far short of the worst coverage on the site. Tenachine does not publish why any individual run failed, so this is a real unknown rather than a solved one, the same caveat Tenachine's guide on survivorship bias raises about coverage generally. Whether NR7's own coverage gap has anything to do with why the study performed the way it did is not something this data can answer, and it is worth naming as an open question rather than filling in a guess.
None of this makes NR7 a bad rule to have published or a mistake in the data. It is one honest result among 22, and being the single outlier below breakeven is itself information: it says the other 21 strategies, whatever else separates them, all cleared a bar this one did not. Past performance does not predict future results, and a decade in which one specific volatility rule lost money is a fact about that decade and that rule, not a verdict on volatility breakouts as a category or on narrow-range setups generally.