Elliott wave patterns: check the structural position before naming the shape
Use a pattern-position worksheet to avoid applying a valid shape in an incompatible role.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
Recognising an outline is only one part of a wave interpretation. The proposed pattern also needs an appropriate role in the larger structure. A label can fail because its context is wrong even when its local shape looks familiar.
Record the larger question
Write the higher-degree pattern and the role of the segment under review. For example, are you examining a proposed corrective movement or one advancing component of a larger impulse? Keep the segment boundaries fixed while testing the local pattern.
Distinguish pattern definitions
An ordinary impulse, a diagonal and a corrective pattern have different structural requirements. A generic five-segment drawing does not establish which definition applies. Likewise, an A-B-C label does not identify the internal subdivision of its components. Refer to the relevant pattern lesson before checking details.
Use a three-column worksheet
For each candidate, record its proposed name, required internal evidence and permitted role in the larger hypothesis. In an invented case, the internal detail is missing. The correct worksheet result is unresolved; a position that appears suitable cannot replace that missing detail.
Recheck context after relabelling
If you replace a failed local model, review its relationship to the higher-degree wave as well. Do not preserve a context approval that depended on the earlier interpretation. Save both versions so the change remains explainable. The patterns guide provides a broader map for this exercise.
A local outline resembles a familiar pattern. Can its larger-wave position be ignored?
No. Both the model-specific internal structure and its role in the larger hypothesis need examination.