But those are numbers that were posted after the fact so we have no way of verifying if those calls were generated in real time,
That's correct. The only way to verify is to subscribe to Socrates and watch it happen or record it and then backtest it. But this is the case with any system.
Where is Socrates not buggy, as you say? If that is the case, then the functional areas can be used and proved to be true or not, one way or another.
For example the reversals table in the dashboard and the elected reversals.
Also you said that it is very complex, but in the post you linked, it says 'it is super-simple to follow. You just have to consider the buy and sell signals by looking once a month at Socrates.' Please explain the super simple strategy.
There are different ways to trade Socrates numbers. One of them is by elected reversals without the array. The arrays make it more complex.Of course you can increase the complexity with the various of Socrates indicators (GMW, Pivots, indicating ranges, etc.)
....is free energy. It is physically impossible. Therefore his physics based technical analysis (which I also doubt) is inherently flawed. It breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
This is a controversial topic and I don't see a direct connection to Socrates. In my understanding MA doesn't want to explain how it works or if it is real. He just reported what he experienced and finds it interesting.
The problem with the backtest is that there are supposed to be verifiable data. Armstrong's team does not provide historical data. Therefore the backtest but be regarded with skepticism.
If only Reversals are close to 100% reliable then any elected Reversal elected by less than 1% could be entered for a guaranteed trade, if it were the case.
Armstrong says you cannot use the GMW etc to trade as it is not a trading tool etc. Those other things simply increase contradictions and conflicting signals.
I don't see how it is controversial. It is simply impossible.