It can use its own interpretation rights to respond to customers, but the design itself is flawed. It should bounce back to execute the order. Ensure sufficient margin to place a buy order, then place another buy order. This approach is clearly better. But he misdefined 'termination.' The ambiguity in this termination liquidation is huge. No one would set up a forced liquidation mode for themselves when the contract lacks sufficient margin for adding positions. What customers understand about robot termination: 1. Trigger take profit, sell everything. 2. Trigger stop loss, force liquidation. There’s no third option. I’m operating within the take profit and stop loss range, maintaining sufficient margin. If there’s insufficient margin for new positions, you should count it as a pause. Counting it as termination and then forcing liquidation? That logic is absolutely ridiculous.