Separate manual research, persisted in-app approval records, and risk-checked paper orders while keeping every venue transaction outside the TEMIRIN workflow.
August 3, 2026 · 4 min read
TEMIRIN supports three current records that answer different questions: a manual review records what the user considered, an in-app approval records approve or reject against a saved opportunity, and a paper order records a simulated position. None of them places a venue order. Keeping those boundaries explicit prevents a review status from being mistaken for custody, signing, or execution authority.
All three can refer to the same watchlist-derived opportunity ID, preserved trigger price, current price, policy result, and evidence identifiers. Shared identity reduces duplicate notes while separate statuses keep the audit history honest. A user can stop after research, record an approval decision, or create a paper order without implying that one state automatically advances to another.
Manual review is useful when the source is new, the market wording is subtle, or the available evidence conflicts. The user can inspect explicitly linked evidence, the configured watchlist market, trigger-to-current price movement, public-wallet exposure, and blocked reasons before recording a note. The product organizes that context but does not decide whether the market thesis is correct.
Decision notes persist thesis, invalidation, conviction, linked evidence, market or paper-order identity, and a review date. That record turns an informal no-action or watch decision into material that can be revisited later. It also gives teammates a concrete explanation instead of forcing them to infer intent from a notification.
An approval request stores the opportunity, outcome, requested paper stake and price context. The authenticated app records approve or reject with reviewer identity and decision time. The endpoint enforces the configured price-move guard, so materially changed current price requires a fresh review rather than accepting the earlier conditions.
The approval record keeps requested-at and decision timestamps. Users initiate a fresh in-app review manually after material evidence, role, exposure, or policy changes; the configured price-move guard is the implemented automated protection.
A provider-configured Telegram destination can receive a review alert with a safe link back to the workspace. External delivery attempts are recorded in the alert ledger, independently from the approval record. Provider acceptance does not prove the alert was read and does not update approve or reject status.
Do not treat a Telegram reaction, reply, or stale message as consent. Inspect delivery health in the alert ledger and make the decision in the app. This separation keeps provider troubleshooting from rewriting decision history and makes the exact source of each state clear.
A paper-order ticket requires explicit paper-only, no-real venue transaction, and risk-review confirmation. The server enforces plan-scoped per-order and rolling twenty-four-hour notional limits, plus per-market exposure and portfolio-concentration limits from the latest stored snapshot. A blocked paper order returns the reason instead of silently reducing the request.
Later mark-to-market review can compare the saved paper order with the trigger-price reference while preserving assumptions and decision notes. The result remains hypothetical and does not show an actual fill. Users make every real transaction directly with the venue and remain responsible for eligibility, market interpretation, and risk.
Run one sample through all three current records before standardizing a team routine. Start with a configured watchlist opportunity, record the manual reasoning, create and decide an in-app approval, then save a separate paper order only if the simulated risk checks pass. Compare the timestamps and IDs afterward. The exercise should prove that each record can be understood independently, that Telegram delivery is only an alert trail, and that no state suggests a venue order was created. Document any missing context as a product or operating issue instead of bridging the gap with an informal chat decision.
Manual review gathers evidence and notes, the in-app decision stores an authenticated approve or reject state, and the paper order is a separate simulation with its own price, notional, limits, and audit entry.
No. The decision record and the simulated order remain distinct. A paper order must be created explicitly so its market identity, side, price, notional, policy checks, and timestamp can be reviewed on their own.
It does not occur inside TEMIRIN. The workspace preserves research, decisions, paper simulations, notes, and audit history; users remain responsible for any separate action they choose to take directly at the venue.
