# Dragon Review - Execution And Monitor Consistency

## Governance Metrics
- `removed_trade_over_removal_count`: monitor `0.0` vs source-derived `0.0` -> `match`
- `local_sensitivity_robust_case_count`: monitor `52.0` vs source-derived `52.0` -> `match`

## Execution Fallback Rule
- `dragon_daily_signal_pipeline.py` uses NaN on missing next-bar execution prices: `True`
- `dragon_refined_execution_validation.py` uses NaN on missing next-bar execution prices: `True`

## Weekly Monitor Separation
- `dragon_forward_weekly_summary.csv` includes `system_monitor` row: `True`
- `dragon_forward_weekly_review.html` includes `system_monitor` text: `False`

## Judgment
- The monitor chain is trustworthy only if governance metrics are derived from current source artifacts rather than hard-coded constants.
- The execution-aware chain is trustworthy only if missing next-bar prices do not silently fall back to same-bar close.
- Weekly summary is cleaner now because branch rows and system-level monitor counts are separated.