I notice you allow PP6 in Lat. I thought PP6 was killed into a lat AND by INT, while PP2/PP3 were killed by INT but NOT in LAT. Good to know unless it was an error from you.
Debrief. More than corrections, just some thoughts that the debrief brought to my mind when rereading the chart bar by bar. Blue flag : this bar is the technical BO of the Lat. So we're not in a LAT anymore when at this particular bar. In real-time, I should surely say "as long as this bar has its close out of the Lat's boundaries". It's because this bar is no longer part of the Lat that I could ID an Ag VEBO. When debriefing , at this bar I said humm.. Ag is killed in Lat..Oh ok, we're not in Lat anymore. Just wanted to share. Green flag : same as prior flag, this bar is the technical BO of the LAT, we're no longer in it. At my LOD : We've had two P1's in a row. Those P1's has been both part of a Lat, so they're INT's by nature. We're not in the Lat anymore. Thus, when T1 comes, although it is between two prior P1's, it can't be PP3 as PP3 is killed if INT inbetween first P1 and T1 in question. If Lat5 had not been a Lat"x", I could see a PP3. This will create the pink flag. Pink flag : The bar after green flag is P2 and is > P1. AND we have T1> first P1. So Ag is gated. In this configuration, I see like if T2P could be impossible being as if it's between P2 (which is > P1) and T1 (which is also > P1) we'll have an HVBO in any case. Being as we're with P2 > P1, next bar being above T1 so it's above P1 so it's a new P1 so it's Ag VEBO. I have a doubt here. Like if, after a PP3 killed, if we have a P2, next bar will be condemned to either be Ag VEBO if above T1, or Ab LVBO if below T1. But in any case, no T2P would be possible. Strange. Or maybe correct and I just don't see it yet. Anyway, that's interesting to me. Have to think about it and search a bit to DD.
For now, that's what is drawn to me : From my LOD : Bar 1 : EE towards long Bar 2 : long FF is built, rtl is established. Bar 3 : rtl is fanned, bar is included Bar 4 : EE towards short. At this moment, no pt2 is outside of prior established rtl. I need it to be out of it if I want to see at this level of timeframe (let's assume it's the 5min one) a slower fractal level. ... Bar 6 : EE towards long. No pt2 has been outside of rtl. The firstly initiated FF is still a FF. The EE short that happened inside of it was a faster fractal being built inside of it. Bar 7 : EE short. Bar crosses rtl. Bar 8 : I have a new rtl established, pt2 is out of prior one. A slower fractal level (TF) is building. ( at this moment, if this bar 8 had not led to any possible rtl, I'd have fanned prior long FF rtl. Bar 9 : EE long. If next bar lets draw a new rtl with pt2 out of prior one, TF will appear. Bar 10 : long TF appears. What is described in underlined exposes in the most clear way I can, my current LOD and comprehension of the building of fractal levels at a given timeframe. AND If bar 8 had, like I said in parenthesis, not led to a new rtl (let's say bar 8 had been XB), I'd not have seen yet a new short FF. To be able to do so, I'd have to change the timeframe and observe it from another POV. This would make the link with "when a fractal level is not complete, the completion has occured at a faster fractal level within it" and with "to see all fractal level complete one must go beyond a unique timeframe POV". I'm not sure about the words, but I do believe the idea is there. This is how I'm currently seeing things. I also wanna undersand the link between this and the turns. I'll just take my time to expose it. Effectively, orient via BE, DO, HAVE leads to better feelings and, even though it's maybe incorrect what I just said or is incomplete, it produces. This is not a struggle.
Therefore here : It's the case where a BO,T1 bar and the subsequent bar do not lead to draw any rtl at this timeframe level. According to what I said in the post before this one, I should not see any TF and just fan the long FF initiated by PP4.
Thus, according to this OP, here are last chart with rebuilt rtl's I can feel the more I will keep on logging, the more I will think deeper about it and the Aha will come. My current sticking point is understanding the relationship between how fractal levels build, timeframe and turns. Here is a thing about turns I had thought about : Although it will surely in a near future be easy for me to understand that, or maybe I don't realize that I already know what this means, or something else. Anyway, I had drawn this some time ago, it is very simple. Ridiculously simple. A long container, with non dominant moves yielded by b-turns and dominant moves yielded by a-turns. I wondered at first : can this happen ? Just with a glimpse at any of my chart, clearly the answer is yes. It does can happen, it just, in fact, happens so frequently. What does that mean ? I could go now for a big ride of DD as I'm used with now, but I will first do a log. MADA before anything and logging is the difference that makes the difference. I can feel so strongly that when I have the Aha linking timeframe-fractal levels-turns all together, will be for me the greatest AHA one could ever have about the method. And surely, the remaining knowledge zones to conqueer would then be details compared to all I've done and understood so far. Let this rest for now and log. 33th session coming up.
NB : Unfortunately I only have one blank log remaining from all I had printed some months ago. I'll fill it today, post it and will go in town when I can, mabe on Saturday, to print new ones. I'll have to establish and fix the good Log format to print in order to avoid the necessary additional writings to it each time I must fill a log. Lastly, I erased the "Action" column and put Turn, In became From etc.. Let's have a pattern log. I'll then dedicate tomorrow at least, to reflexion, thinkings, drawings and DD's about fractal levels-timeframe-turns' link, and will post a list of every aspects/zones/items/words/concepts I feel from perfect to horrible with, ordering them by nuances. This will be a balance sheet to establish where I am, what is in front of me still, and the progress that has been made in one year and a half on this thread.