Triangle components: an evidence check for A through E
Use five invented review cards to separate a plausible outline from evidence for the smaller structures.
Published: (UTC+3)
A converging outline is a starting hypothesis. The corrective triangle considered here contains five corrective components, conventionally labelled A–B–C–D–E. Its 3–3–3–3–3 description refers to structures at a smaller degree; it does not mean that any three visible turns prove each component.
Fix the question before inspecting the shape
Assume, only for this exercise, a possible wave-4 position at one fixed degree. The invented endpoints are 200, 180, 194, 184 and 191. E has started, but its endpoint is unknown. The table supplies fictional review classifications for A, B and D. These are stated inputs to a logic exercise, not classifications independently derived from the listed endpoints or produced by Elliott.
Read the five review cards
| Component | Boundary prices | Supplied smaller-structure record | What can be concluded |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 200 → 180 | 5–3–5 | A corrective 5–3–5 classification is supplied for the exercise; retain its underlying evidence in a real review. |
| B | 180 → 194 | 5–3–5 | A corrective 5–3–5 classification is supplied. A return in the opposite direction alone would not establish it. |
| C | 194 → 184 | ? | No smaller-structure evidence is supplied. A falling line does not establish a corrective C component. |
| D | 184 → 191 | 5–3–5 | A corrective 5–3–5 classification is supplied; direction and parent boundaries still need consistent treatment. |
| E | 191 → ? | 191 → 187 → 189 → … | Only an unfinished sequence is supplied. Neither its final boundary nor a completed corrective structure is known. |
Turn a label into an auditable record
For every row, retain the component's start and end, degree, data source and last completed bar. Attach the smaller chart or component ledger that supports its classification. Record separately what is observed, what is assumed and what is unresolved. A three-letter label is not the evidence behind a 5–3–5 internal classification; that classification itself needs its own checks. Keep the same input and boundaries while comparing interpretations.
Change one piece of evidence
A separate review now establishes that the whole proposed C component is a motive five, rather than a correction. Can the same triangle interpretation be accepted because the outer lines converge?
No. That new premise conflicts with the required corrective role of this component. Reject this particular triangle interpretation on the unchanged data. Do not rename it a diagonal solely to preserve the drawing: another model needs its own context and structural evidence. A five-part movement inside a smaller corrective structure would be a different statement; identify the degree and the whole component actually being classified.
Continue without inventing completion
If C later receives corrective support, E is still unfinished in this snapshot. Mark the case unresolved rather than filling its missing endpoint with a convenient price. The supplied cards teach conditional reasoning; they do not prove a complete market triangle, a forecast or an entry. Use the existing pattern guide for the wider classification, then follow the first-calculation guide with your own appropriate data.
First calculation → · Compare Pro and Light → · Request Pro →
Expanding triangle: check the diverging boundaries
An expanding triangle has diverging A–C and B–D boundaries. It remains an A–B–C–D–E correction, not an impulse merely because it has five parts. For this exercise, assume a wave-four position following a rise and the 3–3–3–3–3 model. The outer points do not establish those corrective components.
At invented t=0,10,20,30,40,50 use prices 130,120,132,116,136,110. The A–C line is L(t)=122−0.2t and the B–D line is U(t)=128+0.2t. Their width U−L=6+0.4t increases from 14 at t=20 to 26 at t=50.
E=110 ends 2 below L(50)=112, deliberately crossing the A–C line. That crossing alone does not decide whether a triangle interpretation is acceptable. Review internal structure and parent position separately; the picture establishes neither a completed market correction nor the subsequent price direction.
Do diverging boundaries invalidate every Elliott triangle?
No. They contradict contracting geometry but fit an expanding hypothesis. Its five corrective components and parent position still require evidence.
Barrier triangle: one boundary is horizontal
A barrier form has one nearly horizontal boundary while the other approaches it. This exercise makes upper B–D exactly horizontal and assumes wave four before a final upward actionary component. That context is supplied, not a promised breakout. The 3–3–3–3–3 internal model is also an assumption of the exercise.
At the same t values use 130,115,130,119,130,122. Since B=D=130, U(t)=130; A and C define L(t)=113+0.2t. The width 17−0.2t contracts from 13 to 7 between t=20 and t=50. E=122 is 1 below L(50)=123. That crossing does not replace component and completion checks.
B returned to 130. Does that make this a running triangle?
No. B equals the start of A here rather than exceeding it. Boundary shape and B’s relationship to the origin are separate observations.
Running triangle: a property of B, not a fourth boundary class
In the running variation considered here, B exceeds the start of A. Running is not an independent fourth boundary class: our sample retains contracting geometry. Assume wave four and five corrective components; B’s new high proves neither those premises nor a completed E.
At the same t values use 130,115,134,120,131,124. B=134 exceeds the origin 130, while E=124 is below it: the whole outline retraces 6 points of the preceding rise. L(t)=112.5+0.25t and U(t)=137−0.15t give a width of 24.5−0.4t, shrinking from 16.5 to 4.5.
E=124 is 1 below L(50)=125. Do not confuse a source-permitted E overshoot with established corrective structure. For the running description, compare B with A’s start at 130 rather than A’s end at 115; an ordinary upward return after A does not establish that property.
Does B exceeding the original high automatically make the outline expanding?
No. The boundaries converge here. Running describes B relative to A’s start; inspect A–C/B–D geometry and internal components separately.
Sources
Method basis: Prognosis Software Development, Elliott Wave Theory (1996/2013), pp. 16, 17 and 20. Only the corrective-component and internal-structure statements are used. The cards, prices and exercise are our own; no source figure is reproduced.
Wave-pattern guide