Time an Owner’s Interpretation After an Answer Finishes Rendering

A better explanation can be a worthwhile agent improvement even when every trading decision remains the same. We propose treating it as its own release: preserve the decision path, change how the relevant fact is presented, and measure whether owners reach the correct interpretation faster.

DXAP's activity guide gives a concrete communication task. A submitted order establishes that the order was sent; its status still needs inspection. A fill establishes recorded execution. An explanation that compresses both states into “your trade completed” creates confusion that a language change could repair.

Consider an illustrative response to an order still resting. The original answer says, “The action completed successfully,” then mentions the pending status later. A candidate answer opens, “The order was submitted and remains unfilled,” followed by the recorded status and where to inspect it. The candidate explains the same execution record with a more useful first sentence.

Freeze more than the final action

For this proposed test, both answers receive the same saved turn, tool responses and order-status cutoff. Preserve strategy, configured policies and proposal state. Run the candidate only as a retrospective explanation generator, with execution authority unavailable. This makes the communication intervention inspectable without depending on a claim that a live deployment happened to choose identical actions.

Before owners see the answers, reviewers check semantic equivalence. Does each answer preserve the instrument, order state, observation time and uncertainty? A response that becomes easier by dropping an unresolved fact fails this check. An answer that invents a fill belongs to correctness repair, regardless of its readability.

The chat guide documents asking the selected agent about its decisions and keeps chat separate from trading turns and settings approval. That shipped separation is the product anchor for this proposed explanation-only evaluation.

Time the interpretation, then check retention

Assign owners to one version of an unfamiliar case. Ask them to identify whether an execution was recorded and where they would verify it. Start timing after the answer finishes rendering; otherwise generation speed and reading comprehension become mixed measurements. Report response latency separately.

An illustrative result would be a median interpretation time of 35 seconds for the original and 20 seconds for the candidate. That fifteen-second difference supports faster interpretation only if accuracy is preserved or improved. Record wrong answers, abandoned questions and requests for clarification alongside the median. A fast wrong answer is an adverse result.

After a brief unrelated task, ask a second question about the same distinction using a new example. This tests whether the revised wording taught the state relationship or merely helped participants spot a phrase. The delayed question also reveals whether “unfilled” was mistaken for “rejected.”

Our release record would state the communication claim, the frozen input contract and the factual error comparison. A narrower explanation update can then pass or fail on its actual purpose. Any future evaluation of prediction or trading economics remains attached to the decision system that produced those outcomes, rather than credited to more readable prose.