Elliott wave rules: overlap does not automatically prove a diagonal
Use the failed ordinary impulse as a starting point for a separate diagonal review.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
The ordinary impulse and a diagonal are different motive structures. Fourth-wave overlap with first-wave price territory can contradict an ordinary-impulse interpretation, while overlap can occur in a diagonal. That distinction does not make every overlapping sequence a valid diagonal.
Check the original model first
Record the actual prices that establish overlap and the ordinary-impulse requirement being tested. A brief intrabar excursion can matter even when the final close returns outside the territory. Use the source observations required by the rule, rather than checking only a closing-price line.
Start a separate diagonal hypothesis
A diagonal requires its own internal structure and an appropriate position in the larger pattern. An ending diagonal and a leading diagonal have different positional contexts. Record which type is proposed. Do not merely replace the word impulse with diagonal to retain a favored directional scenario.
Ask for the missing evidence
In an invented overlapping sequence, suppose the internal subdivisions and larger-wave position cannot be verified. The ordinary-impulse candidate may be rejected while the proposed diagonal remains unresolved. Those two results can coexist; rejection of one model does not establish the other.
Document a defensible revision
Link each diagonal requirement to the observations supporting it and retain any unresolved checks. The official diagonal lesson also discusses differing internal forms for leading examples, so specify the adopted definition. A wedge-shaped outline alone cannot settle the model or guarantee a reversal.
An ordinary impulse fails an overlap check. Can the same points be declared a diagonal without further review?
No. A diagonal is a separate structural hypothesis requiring appropriate position and internal evidence.
Separate structural position from boundary shape
A leading diagonal is considered in wave 1 or A of a zigzag; an ending diagonal occupies a terminal 5 or C position. Contracting and expanding describe the boundaries instead. Leading and contracting therefore answer different questions. Record the parent wave, degree and adopted definition before examining the outline.
An ending model uses five three-part movements. For leading diagonals, EWI discusses both 3–3–3–3–3 and 5–3–5–3–5 without settling on one universal internal form. Outer turning points cannot establish those subdivisions. The following invented datasets are educational hypotheses, not completed counts from a market.
A contracting example: prices and two boundaries
Use invented times t=0,10,20,30,40,50 and prices 100,130,115,140,126,150. The lengths of waves 1,3,5 are 30,25,24; the two retracements are 15 and 14. Wave 4 ends at 126 inside wave 1’s 100–130 territory. Wave 2 remains above the origin, and wave 4 remains above wave 2’s end.
On the stated linear scale, the line through 1 and 3 is U(t)=125+0.5t; the line through 2 and 4 is D(t)=104+0.55t. Their width 21−0.05t falls from 20 at t=20 to 18.5 at t=50. This establishes convergence in the drawing. For this exercise, assume a larger wave 5 and the 3–3–3–3–3 model; neither is established by the six endpoints.
An expanding example is a separate hypothesis
At the same invented times, use prices 100,120,110,140,115,160. Actionary lengths are 20,30,45 and retracements 10,25. Wave 4 at 115 overlaps wave 1 but stays above wave 2 at 110. Wave 3 is not the shortest actionary movement.
Here U(t)=110+t and D(t)=105+0.25t. The width 5+0.75t grows from 20 to 42.5 over the same interval. That demonstrates divergence, not the internal pattern. For this exercise, propose a leading larger wave 1 with 3–3–3–3–3; its internal pieces remain unsupplied.
Measure a fifth-wave throw-over against the 1–3 line
Keep the contracting example’s first five points and move the fifth endpoint to 150.5 at t=50. The 1–3 line is then U(50)=150, so the overshoot is 0.5. The fifth length is 24.5; wave 3 at 25 remains longer. Comparing price and line at the same time identifies this invented throw-over.
Crossing that line alone establishes neither completion nor a future reversal. Conversely, a fifth endpoint at 145 would miss the line at 150 while still exceeding wave 3 at 140. A line undershoot is therefore not automatically a truncated fifth relative to the third-wave extreme. Identify the comparison and inspect internal completion before naming the result.
Avoid mixing outlines, degrees and source definitions
Do not rescue a failed impulse merely by renaming it. Check parent position, internal components, overlap and the applicable price conditions. Keep degrees and source observations consistent, including intrabar extremes. These drawings use a linear scale and a teaching index t, not dates; compare boundary widths at common times.
The strict length orders above belong to the selected exercises. Authors have revised length conditions, so retain the method and definition version. Separate established geometry, unresolved subdivisions and missing parent context in the conclusion. An outline supplies neither a transaction instruction nor a measured reversal probability.
The boundaries converge and wave 4 overlaps wave 1. Is an ending diagonal established? No: its structural position, internal model and remaining conditions still need checking on the same data.