Elliott wave count review: what changes when the source history is revised
Compare two versions of the same dataset without treating a corrected historical value as a new market event.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
A saved interpretation refers to the data available when it was made. If the provider later revises an old price bar, distinguish that source revision from price action that occurred after your calculation. Both can affect the review, but they are different events.
Preserve the earlier version
Keep the original export and the original analysis record. Record the source, download date and time coverage. Without that copy, you may be unable to establish whether a later discrepancy came from the data, settings or your interpretation.
Find the exact changed observation
In an invented comparison, version A reports an old low of 111 and version B reports 109 for the same timestamp. The relevant wave boundary is 110. Verify the source revision and column mapping before explaining the effect. Do not silently replace the earlier file.
Separate two conclusions
On A, the selected low was above 110. On B, it is below 110, so the relevant ordinary-impulse boundary check changes. This is not evidence that a new price bar crossed the boundary after the forecast. It is a reassessment using different historical input.
Keep the review history
Retain the earlier conclusion as a record of the earlier information, then add the revised-data assessment. Explain which scenarios depend on the changed value. The exercise demonstrates input versioning; it does not establish that a real provider revised any particular instrument or that the application made an error.
Can you describe the revised old low as a new price movement after your original calculation?
No. A historical-data revision and a newly completed market price bar are different events. Record the source versions and their distinct effects.