Thanks for checking it out! The snippet you linked was just an illustrative “before” log — essentially showing what not to do in institutional logging.
The actual framework uses multi-layered, auditable logs with:
Hardware timestamps (NIC, CPU, PTP-synced)
Cryptographic integrity manifests
Offline verification of latencies
PCAP captures for external validation
Everything in use follows the “after” model, designed for fully reproducible, evidence-based latency measurements. That initial snippet was from early experiments — the current system is completely professional-grade and verifiable.
For what it’s worth, I care more about whether the claims can be independently verified than how the explanation is phrased. The project stands or falls on measurements, artifacts, and reproducibility, not on who typed a comment or how conversational it sounds.
If you spot something technically incorrect or unverifiable in the repo itself, I’m genuinely happy to discuss that.
The full C++ execution core is intentionally not published yet. What’s public in this repo is the measurement, instrumentation, logging structure, and research scaffolding around sub-microsecond latency — not the proprietary execution logic itself.
I should have stated that more explicitly up front.
The goal of the public material is to show how latency is measured, verified, and replayed, rather than to ship a complete trading engine. I’m happy to discuss methodology or share deeper details privately with interested engineers.
The actual framework uses multi-layered, auditable logs with:
Hardware timestamps (NIC, CPU, PTP-synced)
Cryptographic integrity manifests
Offline verification of latencies
PCAP captures for external validation
Everything in use follows the “after” model, designed for fully reproducible, evidence-based latency measurements. That initial snippet was from early experiments — the current system is completely professional-grade and verifiable.