Elliott subwaves: audit the structure of a higher-degree wave
Build a higher-degree-wave and subwave evidence sheet that exposes missing subdivisions rather than hiding them under a larger label.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
A higher-degree wave label can look convincing while its internal structure remains unexamined. Treat the proposed subwaves as evidence that must fit inside the higher-degree wave's boundaries and satisfy the relevant pattern definition. Zooming the chart is a way to inspect that evidence, not a substitute for it.
Write the higher-degree wave claim precisely
Record the proposed larger wave pattern, direction, first timestamp and last timestamp. Keep the exact same segment when inspecting a finer view. Otherwise a subwave review can accidentally examine a different movement.
List the internal structure expected for that particular hypothesis. Do not use the familiar five-wave shape as a universal template for every corrective or diagonal structure.
Create one row per proposed subwave
For each subwave, note its start, end, proposed role and the evidence you actually reviewed. Mark whether it is supported, rejected under the chosen hypothesis or unresolved with the available data.
In an invented review, four subwave rows have inspected evidence and one row has only a label. The higher-degree wave has an open structural question even if the larger endpoints pass simple price checks.
Resolve missing evidence honestly
Use appropriate source history and a finer sampling interval when available. Keep track of whether the new data covers the missing segment. A highly magnified screenshot with no additional price bars does not resolve a missing subdivision.
If the evidence remains unavailable, retain the unresolved status for that subwave and limit the higher-degree wave conclusion. Do not draw extra turning points merely to make the expected wave interpretation appear complete.
Review the hierarchy after a change
When new price bars change a subwave interpretation, revisit the higher-degree wave claim and any alternatives that depend on it. Keep the earlier dated review so that the change is explainable.
This is a manual research worksheet, not a wave hypothesis that the application automatically validates every nested structure. Use it alongside the wave-degree guide to distinguish a displayed label from a fully inspected hypothesis.
All higher-degree wave endpoints look plausible, but one required subwave has no inspected structure. What is the status?
The higher-degree wave hypothesis still has an unresolved internal requirement. Endpoint plausibility does not supply the missing subwave evidence.
A numerical 5–3–5–3–5 impulse model
The invented parent points are 100, 120, 112, 150, 140 and 160. Wave two remains above the origin at 100, and wave four above the first-wave endpoint at 120. The actionary lengths are 20, 38 and 20, so wave three is not the shortest. The table specifies child points inside every parent wave instead of merely putting five labels above six prices.
Waves two and four use the educational zigzag model A–B–C. Their A and C legs are assigned internal fives and B a corrective three; the numerical tree appears below the chart. The third child of the third parent wave is expanded once more. The complete sequence of child waves starts and ends at the boundaries of the parent wave being subdivided. Adjacent children share a turning point: the end of one is the start of the next.
This is a finite model diagram, not an accepted count of a real instrument. Structures below the last illustrated degree are intentionally left schematic. A market conclusion requires source bars, context and model checks at the chosen depth. If a fourth child overlaps the first child's territory in an ordinary impulse model, investigate that node; renaming parent labels does not repair the failure.
| Parent wave | Child points | Structure |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100 → 108 → 104 → 114 → 110 → 120 | Motive five |
| 2 | 120 → 114 → 118 → 112 | Corrective three |
| 3 | 112 → 128 → 122 → 142 → 132 → 150 | Motive five |
| 4 | 150 → 142 → 147 → 140 | Corrective three |
| 5 | 140 → 148 → 144 → 154 → 150 → 160 | Motive five |
Additional nodes of the educational tree
- 2.A: 120 → 117 → 119 → 115 → 116.5 → 114
- 2.B: 114 → 117 → 115.5 → 118
- 2.C: 118 → 115 → 116.5 → 113 → 114 → 112
- 4.A: 150 → 146 → 148 → 144 → 145.5 → 142
- 4.B: 142 → 146 → 144 → 147
- 4.C: 147 → 144 → 145.5 → 142 → 143 → 140
- 3.iii: 122 → 130 → 126 → 136 → 132 → 142
An extension and nine visible segments
In this example the third parent wave is longer than its actionary siblings: 38 versus 20 and 20. Within it, the third child 122→142 is expanded into 122→130→126→136→132→142. Replacing one of five parts with five smaller parts adds four visible segments. There are nine visible segments at mixed degrees, while the original degree still has five waves.
An extension describes an elongated motive wave with pronounced internal subdivisions. A length ratio alone, or nine similar fluctuations, cannot establish it. The coefficient 1.618 is not a compulsory extension threshold. Check degree, nesting, shared boundaries and the rules of each illustrated five; do not count every small movement as an equal parent wave.
Measure each role without inventing a required ratio
Reuse the published finite model 100→120→112→150→140→160. Measure L=|end−start| in the same linear price units. The table compares wave two with one, wave four with three, and motive waves with one. Those denominators are choices, not interchangeable percentages. Wave one supplies a reference unit; it has no standalone compulsory Fibonacci length. Waves two and four need corrective structures; a standalone triangle is not the whole second wave of this ordinary impulse.
Completion requires the structure of the proposed model, shared child/parent boundaries and the information available at the cutoff. The existing child tree supplies the exercise’s subdivisions; deeper structures remain schematic. Wave three is an impulse; one may instead be a leading diagonal, and five an ending diagonal, only under their own definitions. If a proposed inner second of the developing fifth falls below its chosen start 140, that particular start hypothesis fails. A decline after an already completed fifth is a different event and does not retroactively invalidate its completion. Neither a ratio touch nor a fixed candle count proves an ending.
| Wave | Published segment | Length | Declared comparison | Structural qualification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100→120 | 20 | L1/L1=1 | Reference unit; impulse here, leading diagonal needs separate evidence. |
| 2 | 120→112 | 8 | L2/L1=8/20=0.4 | Corrective; full retracement is excluded in this strict ordinary-impulse model. |
| 3 | 112→150 | 38 | L3/L1=38/20=1.9 | Impulse; beyond wave one and not shortest among 1/3/5. |
| 4 | 150→140 | 10 | L4/L3=10/38≈0.263158 | Corrective; stays above wave-one territory ending at 120. |
| 5 | 140→160 | 20 | L5/L1=20/20=1 | Impulse here; ending-diagonal alternative needs its own evidence; equality is optional. |
Wave four measures 10/38 rather than 0.382. Must the impulse be rejected?
No. Its ratio is approximately 0.263158, not a compulsory depth. Check the correction and the non-overlap boundary separately.