---
title: "Comment by StackShortlist on \"No method has been shown to predict what software to build. So I'm backtesting mine on three years of store data\" | Hashnode"
description: "The update is the most useful part: a signal that first looked 13x better than random drops to about 2x against needs of the same size, then 1.4 to 1.6x with fi"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/no-method-has-been-shown-to-predict-what-software-to-build-so-i-m-backtesting-mine-on-three-years-of-store-data/6ac83de63ea584ea9edc7f40/comment/6ad2fed9874abf8e984c785b"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/no-method-has-been-shown-to-predict-what-software-to-build-so-i-m-backtesting-mine-on-three-years-of-store-data/6ac83de63ea584ea9edc7f40)

Comment [No method has been shown to predict what software to build. So I'm backtesting mine on three years of store data](https://hashnode.com/posts/no-method-has-been-shown-to-predict-what-software-to-build-so-i-m-backtesting-mine-on-three-years-of-store-data/6ac83de63ea584ea9edc7f40)

[Oct 17](https://hashnode.com/posts/no-method-has-been-shown-to-predict-what-software-to-build-so-i-m-backtesting-mine-on-three-years-of-store-data/6ac83de63ea584ea9edc7f40/comment/6ad2fed9874abf8e984c785b)

The update is the most useful part: a signal that first looked 13x better than random drops to about 2x against needs of the same size, then 1.4 to 1.6x with finer bands, and still in-sample. Publishing the misses alongside the wins is what makes the experiment worth following.

[Reid Ji](https://hashnode.com/@reidstonji)

[Oct 17](https://hashnode.com/posts/no-method-has-been-shown-to-predict-what-software-to-build-so-i-m-backtesting-mine-on-three-years-of-store-data/6ac83de63ea584ea9edc7f40/comment/6ad2fed9874abf8e984c785b#reply-6ad333fbbbe835398831fb2d)

Right — in-sample is the honest caveat. The finding is the drop itself: a raw signal looks great until you control for need size. So it's a hypothesis to test out-of-sample next — and I'll publish whichever way it goes.