Automatic Elliott wave analysis: compare three candidates fairly
Use one input and one review sheet to distinguish a rejected interpretation, an unresolved interpretation and a supported hypothesis.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
Several possible Elliott wave interpretations are useful only if you can explain how they differ. Start with the same data and range for every candidate, then compare structural evidence. The first candidate displayed is not automatically a reliable forecast of future prices.
Freeze the comparison conditions
In this invented exercise, candidates A, B and C use the same price bars, timeframe and starting boundary. Make a copy of those conditions at the top of your review sheet. If you later extend the history, start a new comparison record.
Record the pattern proposed by each candidate. A comparison between an ordinary impulse and another pattern needs the appropriate rules for each; do not reject one model using an unrelated model's definition.
Use separate review columns
Create columns for checked price relationships, internal subdivisions, unresolved questions and rejection conditions. Write observations in these columns before writing an overall judgement.
Suppose A breaks a required boundary, B passes the checks you completed but lacks lower-level evidence, and C has the strongest documented support in this exercise. Record A as rejected under that hypothesis, B as unresolved and C as the current research candidate.
Do not invent a probability
Those three statuses do not imply numeric probabilities. A position in a list or a visually attractive wave interpretation is not a calibrated chance of a price outcome. Use a percentage only if you have a defined and independently evaluated statistical method.
This exercise does not describe a proprietary scoring formula or wave hypothesis that these exact statuses appear in the application. It is a manual way to make your own review transhigher-degree wave.
State what would change the assessment
For the candidate you retain, write what additional price bars would clarify the missing structure and what observation would invalidate the chosen hypothesis. Keep those conditions tied to the same range and degree.
When new data arrives, add a dated review rather than silently replacing the previous explanation. The alternatives guide provides the wider context for keeping competing wave interpretations separate.
Candidate C has the best evidence in your sheet. Can you call it an 80% forecast?
No. Evidence ranking in this exercise does not supply a calibrated probability. Keep the structural conclusion and its limits explicit.