Wave three and Fibonacci: 1.618 is a reference, not an obligation
Calculate one projection while keeping the third-wave structural requirements independent of that ratio.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
A projected Fibonacci level can help organise a review, but the projection is not a rule that every third wave must reach. Write the arithmetic and the structural tests separately so that a missed reference level is not mistaken for automatic invalidation.
Set the synthetic anchors
Let the first wave advance from 100 to 120 and the following correction end at 110. Its arithmetic length is 20. Projecting 1.618 times that length from 110 gives 142.36. This states a calculation convention rather than a guaranteed endpoint.
Compare two hypothetical observations
A developing movement reaching 139 has not reached 142.36. A movement reaching 146 has passed it. Neither observation alone determines whether the proposed third wave has the required internal structure or has completed. The arithmetic level and structural status are separate fields.
Apply the actual model checks
For the relevant ordinary impulse, examine progress beyond wave one and the model-specific subdivisions. Once the advancing waves can be compared, check that the third is not the shortest. Do not replace those checks with a demand for an exact 1.618 relationship.
Keep the result in context
Preserve the anchor timestamps, scale and unresolved details. If the interpretation changes, review whether the measured first wave and the projection origin still belong to the same hypothesis. A precise decimal cannot repair an unsupported structural assignment.
The candidate reaches 139 rather than 142.36. Is it automatically invalid for missing 1.618?
No. A missed reference ratio is not that structural rule. Check the relevant model requirements and the evidence available.