Last updated July 17, 2026
This page explains the public research workflow without claiming details of a proprietary scoring formula. The core idea is simple: define a chart question, compare the selected window with historical windows under consistent settings, then inspect a range of later paths.
1. Define the input
Select the symbol, timeframe, and comparison context that fit the question. These settings are part of the result. A different interval or window can change which shapes look similar, so record the choice before reviewing outcomes.
2. Review multiple historical matches
A ranked match describes similarity under the selected comparison. It is not a probability. Inspect more than one result, note overlapping historical periods, and keep examples that contradict the preferred narrative.
3. Inspect subsequent paths
What happened after each historical window forms a scenario set. Look at both clustering and dispersion. Even tightly grouped historical paths can diverge from the present because markets, participants, liquidity, volatility, and events change.
4. Separate research from risk
Similarity cannot decide whether an exposure is appropriate for a particular person. Entry, loss, position, liquidity, and concentration limits require independent judgment. Read the risk disclosure.
What the comparison cannot establish
- That a later price path will repeat.
- That the highest-ranked match is economically equivalent to the current market.
- That fees, funding, slippage, liquidity, or execution will match a historical example.
- That a strategy is profitable or suitable.
A reproducible review checklist
Write down the settings, inspect several matches, record exclusions, review contradictory paths, define invalidation conditions, and save the conclusion before the outcome is known. The scenario review checklist provides a longer version.