Making JH' SCT and all his material alive

10-

This is what I've just DDd.

The following JH had been posted by JH. Was it from its own hand and brain, Idk and do not care. What matters is that he said this is the chart for "midday".
And that's what's shown


On other charts I've seen and that was presented as "midday", they all began at 11:am.

I see here there's a vertical black line on 1:30pm (13:30). What happens here ?

Before answering and explain why my DD, let's have a glimpse at this :


It's post #217 of SCT scratch Thread.
My comprehension is that midday ends at bar 45. It's 1:10pm (13:10 for me).

Mixing this text with the chart, what do I see ?

I see that the end of midday is at 1:10pm. And what happens on the chart ? by including 1:10pm bar to all the prior ones of the chart, I have midday period. Then what happens on the bar having the vertical black line ? It's 1:30pm bar. We seem to BO and go out of midday from here. What happened before. I solved this when I began to think about G node.
Where is the last trough of midday ? It's at 13:00. T1. Then, starting from 13:10= bar 45 like the text states, which is the first bar to exceed prior trough ? the bar just before the one receiving the vertical black line.

So my DD is that midday begins at 11:00am everyday and ends at bar 45=13:10 AND its BO can happen at any time (G node). It reminds me technical and functional BO of Lats.

Can anyone confirm ?

 

Yes I can do it myself. It's wrong cause I've just mistaken S node nature with G one.

G deals with prior peak, not trough.

 

Ok next and final DD.
I think I was right on my DD but for a wrong reason. That is very very dangerous.
New reason that sounds good, coherent and logic to me :
The 13:10 bar is a continuation of increasing. It's bar 45. It suits the text. So is this bar a peak ? it is not, we'd need to use next bar for that which can't be allowed. So where's prior peak ? At 12:55, BMrev.
Which is, AFTER 13:10, the first increasing volume bar w/ any color compared to this peak ? The one before the one that receives the black vertical line. Therefore, this vertical black line would separate in two parts midday and out of midday, more precisely midday and BO of midday. Effectively, there is no neccesity that the bar BO midday is 46th bar. It can be later. Here, the BO bar of midday that would be G node is 13:25 bar = bar 48.
And that would be ok now.

Any confirmation ?

 

In case no confirmation came or it came later, I will go with my own DD. It looks and sounds correct to me.

So point 10 in the list disappears.
Point 3 also disappears.

Concerning point11 : the use of PRV.

I remind there are two subpoints in this part.

The first one is : do we use PRV on n+2 column, or only on n+1 column. The chart says we use PRV for n+1 column, but does not say to use it on n+2. The text as previously exposed, states we are tu use PRV on n+2 too.

So this first sub point concerning point 11 vanishes.

What’s the other subpoint ? the other subpoint deals with …when the PRV measurement is to be taken into account ?

Well first ,I must say that I’ve been stuck to an idea. I notice now I’ve put it into my mind since a bit, by myself, an I do not see it now true. I know I’ve read a message of Spyder’s JH Futures Thread about PRV. In this message that is quoted in post 1568 of my own thread, it’s just in fact an example. It’s the dissection of how PRV is calculated. It’s an explanation of how this tools is calculated, and it could be used by someone willing to do it by hand.
But, what I’ve put into my mind since then, is that PRV is to be « listened » (I mean, used to make a decision) only… at the moments it is calculated in the given example… silly of me …

I realize now, there is surely just on thing to do as for the use of PRV : and it’s going with a « ASA » mindset.

What do I mean… ?
Let’s have an example that explicitates and reminds something along the 7 sessions in live demo I’ve done using RDBMS during December and January.


It is a very simple example. I am not sure but I think I’ve already used and discussed this example for the same goal lol well, what will make it different is the level of awareness.



When the fourth bar of the trends begins, except volumes pops out immediately, it’s will be below red line. And that’s Ab. From here, in terms of EOB, 3 possibilities. Either bar ends in the same below-red-line zone and it’s Ab ; or it ends between red and pink line and it’s T2P ; or it ends above pink line and that’s Ag. 2 possibilities out of 3 to see the segment end, 1 out of 3 to see it continue.
Now let’s talk about PRV.

If I use the « ASA » way of thinking when I deal with PRV,volume can do 5 things. Before that, we know PRV can at the beginning (sec288) be either above or below lock in. As a first way, PRV can start being above lock in and never contradict itself along the bar formation (a) ; or it could begin showing anticipated LI, and be below at EOB (b) ; or it could begin below LI and increase until ending above LI at EOB (c) ; or it could begin below and never contradict itself (d) ; or it could be erratic and make successive up and down moves along the formation (e)
I am seriously thinking about Cycle 1 here.

For the illustrated example, what would these 5 ways of PRV produce in terms of temporary IDs for the fourth bar of the trend ?

(a) Ag is shown since the beginning and it’s what we have at EOB

(b) Ag is shown since the beginning and ends as…. b1 and b2 need to be put on the table.

(c) C1 and c2 also need to enter into the possibilities to complete it all, and c1 or c2 is the resulting ID.

(d) It will be developped below.

(e) Same as above


Let’s differentiate a bit (b) into (b1) and (b2).
B1 : this would be, following top to bottom sense, T2P.
B2 : then this would be Ab.

So, for (b), we could have T2P or Ab at EOB.
In addition and to be even more precise and complete, we must say that inside the period PRV quits definitely the Ag zone, it can be erratic between b1 and b2 zones.

We’re also to differentiate (c) ; using from bottom to top :
C1 would be Ab
c2 would be T2P

In any case, at (c) we’d have Ag at EOB.
Once again here, we are able to note a possible erratic behavoir by PRV between c1 and c2 before reaching Ag.

(d) will be a bit more complete.
We’ll need a double differentiation.
Begin below LI can mean, from bottom to top :
D1 = Ab
D2 = T2P
From this, although PRV would not contradict itself and remains all the time along the bar below LI, D1 could be D2 at EOB and vice versa. Thus why the double differenciation.


For (e), the paths are almost infinite. I assume that’s where the empirical experience will make a difference. A bit like « how many times have you seen a trend go farer than T2F ? », I could ask myself « how many times PRV have along a single bar passed through (e) way ? ».


As a very simple conclusion, for the illustrated example, as for PRV paths we could have :


(a)- Ag

(b)- Ag>>T2P>>Ab OR Ag>>Ab OR Ag>>T2P>>Ab>>T2P etc

(c)- Ab>> Ag OR T2P>>Ag OR Ab>>T2P>>Ag OR Ab>>T2P….>>Ag

(d)- Ab>>Ab OR Ab>>T2P OR T2P>>T2P OR T2P>>Ab OR Ab>>T2P>>Ab… OR T2P>>Ab>>T2P…

(e)- Not exhaustif : Ab>>T2P>>Ag>>Ab>>Ag>>T2P
Ag>>Ab>>T2P>>Ab>Ag>>T2P


Well…

As a result, we can here easily see that we can pass from different temporary natures of the same single bar. There is then no reason why wait a precise moment (288sec, 240sec, 180sec etc) to use PRV state. ASA it states something different, there would be a potential new 2nd A of MADA.



I am currently feeling three things. But one more than the 2 others.

First : I feel like we have to do the second A of MADA when there’s adequation between the current real volume level AND it’s relative current PRV.
Second : I am seeing the bridge between cycles 1 through 10 and RDBMS
Third : I’d be curious to see what it does if I apply just this way of understanding and seeing PRV to a real time demo session, with RDBMS.

This third feeling is increased by the fact that, contrarily to cycle 1, RDBMS gives explicit pro active actions and makes one take advantage of a very big number of EEs. Simply because in any session, the vaste majority of EEs lead to reversal moves according to MT/MR tables.
For instance, retaking the illustrated example of this post, let’s say the fourth bar begins at and 288sec, PRV states Ag will be there. Let’s say PRV behaves like in (a) + we’re in Set C now + prior EE was Ab.
Then at sec288, I’d already reverse…



Well...

With that said, I know 75% or so of my EE’s are FS’s. If one looks at the way I annotate BO,T1, one could ,see I don’t need the T1 to appear on the 5min timeframe to allow myself to ID a BO,T1. For example, after two P1’s, or a P1-INT sequence. So, we could kind of say FS do not relate to volume. Exception for BO,T1. This would send me back to something I have admitted but not understood since a bit, and I’m talking about the difference between real and false BO,T1.
The question would then be : when a BM of a BO of rtl happens, which tool would confirm or unvalidate this FS ? PRV can’t do anything for that, with how I see it currently.


I can feel Cycles will answer me. And if I remember correctly, Cycle 4 for BO,T1. From memory. It would be congruent with the following.


then being in SIM will make a difference and you'll start to ask the questions that the Exact Science thread is answering in detail.


I feel I can remove pt11 of my list.




To be continued…

 

Updated list in case my last DD's are true.

1- N node needs a last thing to be cleared up. It's relative to P node text in 3x5.
2- why certain nodes exist
4- the reference trough used for the beginning of a trend - D node
5- IBGS meaning
7- which node would cover this scenario
8- difference between J and K
9- path along a single bar or from one bar to another


Concerning this updated list, I must say that I feel I'm about to be able to remove point 9.

I expect a domino effect.

 

I think I can partly answer. Or at least, feed my comprehension a bit w/ the material I have on this.

First I remembered a couple of things about IBGS that have been said on my own journal.
…


I just found them :
IBGS = Intra-Bar Gaussian Sequence. It usually means EOB color to be opposite of trend direction. Watch a trend. Look for IBGS. Watch some more. See for yourself what it may mean, how new trends develop.
Post 283

And there were also this :
To build FF's one has to start at the 10 cases of price. At times a FF is contained with a single bar - this leads one to explore IBGS
Post 293


And I remembered something about a bridge between IBGS and OB’s. And here it is.
To resolve the apparent contradiction with my experience of 'all gaussian sequences must complete', my interpretation is to go beyond when viewed on a singular timeframe. It is true if one goes to the faster fractal that is intrabar of the trading fractal else it is false when viewed on a singular timeframe. The OB's and IBGS were clues to lead to this realization.
Post 279

I also find the following from JH interesting :
The non dominant trip to the RTL includes an IBGS following a doji which sets up the IBGS possibility. (the M node).
ExSc post 232

3M and 3N , respectively are the doji and the IBGS test.
ExSc post 265

The first text says usually, an IBGS is in a given trend, a bar that at EOB has a color opposite to trend. (1)
The second text states exploring IBGS is the resulting effect of understanding the fact that sometimes a FF is contained in a single bar. It reminds me why incomplete trends can cause noise AND why the necessity of going beyond a single timeframe POV. (2)
The third text states OBs and IBGS are clues to lead to the achievement of stopping the « jumping fractal ». (3)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok I can feel this will take a lot of time and I’m a bit of done for today.

See you tomorrow.

To be continued…

 

I finnd better to have all the texts on a single page.

IBGS = Intra-Bar Gaussian Sequence. It usually means EOB color to be opposite of trend direction. Watch a trend. Look for IBGS. Watch some more. See for yourself what it may mean, how new trends develop.

To build FF's one has to start at the 10 cases of price. At times a FF is contained with a single bar - this leads one to explore IBGS

To resolve the apparent contradiction with my experience of 'all gaussian sequences must complete', my interpretation is to go beyond when viewed on a singular timeframe. It is true if one goes to the faster fractal that is intrabar of the trading fractal else it is false when viewed on a singular timeframe. The OB's and IBGS were clues to lead to this realization.

The non dominant trip to the RTL includes an IBGS following a doji which sets up the IBGS possibility. (the M node).

3M and 3N , respectively are the doji and the IBGS test.

Imagine all the IBGS and all the doji’s ; they are almost N’s. An N’s is one of these that went a little farther. […One tick farther is the N test. Pass it one tick farther. (I suspect a typo here and the correction would be Pass iS one tick farther). A fail is just being an IBGS or a doji. A doji is sentimental. One sentiment leading to an equal and opposite sentiment. […] An IBGS is a pre doji. Becoming a doji leads to post dojiness.


The first text says that usually, an IBGS is, in a given trend, a bar that at EOB has a color opposite to trend. (1)

The second text states exploring IBGS is the resulting effect of understanding the fact that sometimes a FF is contained in a single bar. It reminds me why incomplete trends can cause noise AND why the necessity of going beyond a single timeframe POV. (2)

The third text states OBs and IBGS are clues to lead to the achievement of stopping the « jumping fractal ». (3)

The fourth text states IBGS can follow a doji. (4)

The fifth text states N is the IBGS test, while M is the doji (5)

The sixth text states that a pass on N test is one tick farther than the doji ; a fail is just being an IBGS or a doji ; the nit seems to say that a doji is a shift in sentiment ; then it states an IBGS is a pre doji ; and to finish it states when a bar becomes a doji its statu sis after a doji.


(1)- there is a lot of clarity in this first text. We many times see inside a given trend, a bar that ends with a color opposite to the trend within which it is contained. Clear for that. So there is an aspect of the IBGS treated here as : a bar can be an IBGS by comparing its EOB color to the trend (and its color) that envelops it.


(2)- Let’s dissect what sometimes a FF is contained with a single bar means and would visually be like, to see if that is understood.

First, let’s rephrase it in how I understand it : sometimes, a FF is contained inside a single bar.

Back to the basics.

What is a FF ? A FF is made up with at least 2 bars. This sends us back to PC’s
Let’s build a short FF for the example.


Then a next bar arrives and creates an opposite FF with pt2 out of prior rtl. This pt2 is below pt1 of first short FF. Thus, we have a short TF. From the TF POV I’d see bar 3 an IBGS.


On the following drawing I’d see the same for bar 5, from both a FF and a TF POV. That’s what I understand.


Then, using the path of least resistance, which would be the path made by price inside this first short FF ?


So that would be the path of a FF. And how would a single bar containing this path look ?




So we’re talking about the fact that sometimes, a FF is inside a single bar. This reminds me OB. And many souvenirs.



In fact, OB would be an accelerated combo of some PCs forming HH and LL. Thus why « FF inside a single bar » is easier to understand when handling the OB. I the end, folowing in real time what close does inside the bar would be the answer to whether there’s a FF inside a single bar.


What I begin to sense is that the link between « a FF is sometimes contained within a single bar » and IBGS is the following.

IBGS may be the expression of a change in sentiment inside a given bar (which makes this bar an IBGS), but this might not neccesarily mean at EOB bar will have an opposite color to the trend it’s in. If along a single bar, price makes the path of a FF opposite to prior FF AND THEN begins its road back to a new FF opposite to prior, so same as first one, then the EOB color could be the same as the initial trend. I think this would make this bar IBGS.


Let’s see if this is congruent with my understanding of other texts.

To be continued...

 

(3) The third text states OBs and IBGS are clues to lead to the achievement of stopping the « jumping fractal ». What I DD from prior post merged with this (3) text is that, if a single bar contains a FF, then there are two possibilities. Either this bar creates with its H/L a pt2 (inside of itself) that is out of prior rtl ; or it does not. If it does not, it must mean that’s an even faster fractal going through its own pattern. We start from the FF. OTHO, if it does (pt 2 out of rtl), this could change a lot of things and either fan/acc prior FF/TF or even SF, or it could create a slower fractal. Therefore, a kind of bar like this, could be the end of a Dom or non-Dom move, beginning a non-Dom, Dom or new Dom move. Missing the fact that this bar contained a FF could then send one to the wrong side of market.
Although I understand what I say and have no difficulty to imagine it visually, and it makes sense to me, I don’t feel comfortable with that.


(4) The non dominant trip to the RTL includes an IBGS following a doji which sets up the IBGS possibility. (the M node).

So, an IBGS following a doji : this means there’s a doji and after, then there is an IBGS. And this is described as setting up the IBGS possibility. AND this is described as an M node.
I don’t understand this. And it’s even worse when I add next too texts. :

On text 5, it is said that M is the doji and N is the IBGS test. That’s clear in itself, it’s congruent with what the mADA doc and all my comprehension of Cycle 1 for now.
From text 6 I understand that an N pass bar, has gone farer than doji and IBGS. Here, my comprehension begins to be hurt. Nevertheless, what I just understood is congruent with the next part of the text : « A fail is just being an IBGS or a doji ». Effectively if a N pass is farer than IBGS and doji, a N fail is « still a doji or an IBGS ».
After that when I read « an IBGS is a pre doji », this reminds me what I had said first when I began to study IBGS and doji, as I had DDd IBGS was the path from the end of a first move after open, towards open = towards doji. I saw the IBGS as a path inside a bar. An doji as a point of a bar (level of O).
Also, in my prior post I said my comprehension is that although an IBGS bar can have at EOB an opposite color to the trend it’s in at a certain fractal level, that’s not a obligation.

But what produces confusion to me is « becoming a doji leads to post dojiness ». I am unsure about what this means.
For now, my interpretation is that when a bar is along its formation a doji (so C=O), it CAN lead to post dojiness. Rephrased : dojiness is a prerequisite to post-dojiness. This sounds obvious.


All this little struggle with doji, IBGS, one tick further test is a bit seething inside of me.


What I sense are two things :


I’ll handwrite for myself the 10 sheets provided by JH alng the ExSc thread, cause I think they could help me and even further than this M&N nodes.

AND

What I understand is that, when talking about ticks : if we are at the beginning of the most little fractal it can be ; so if we are at the beginning point inside a bar where the most little possible fractal is about to go through its routine of the pattern, then there is only one possibility. And to make it even faster and smaller, I’ll use a visual example of 1 bar = 1sec, as it’s available (nor for me) on tradingview.




What I notice is that for this path, we can’t have a more than 2legged bar. 1 or 2 legs. 3 is impossible. If we have 3 legs, this means one of them (1st) is part of former trend. That’s easy to see here with the green light square :



Plus, I understand the first leg of a trend if it's the most little that could exist, must be 2 ticks. Second leg must be 1 tick and 3rd>0. As I understand it, it can't be another way. Long or short of course. Any deviation from this "pattern" in terms of ticks would work. But the most little must be this one : 2-1-1. For any bar having 3 legs and being short for instance, the first leg if we use the PoLR is not part of this trend being short. The open of the bar in this case would be pt3 of prior trend, and H of bar would be ftt/pt1, L would be pt2 and C would be pt3.

There may be deeper and further DDs I could make from this, but I feel a bit overwhelmed atm for that.


We’ll let’s have a handcopied version of the 10 sheets and see if I can bring light to the remaining doubt zones.


Current list has 7 items.

 

Ok the 10+1 sheets are handwritten. I’ll first focus more upon sheet 10 that is the textual back up for IBGS that occurs on Doji’s.

It is mentionned here, once again that there are four ways to N via M. M is defined as Doji and it’s defined as price open = price n, where n = 0 to 300sec of any bar after ENTER or during all HOLDS.

What I understand about this is that doji is there when C so price at any n moment, equals to open, all this in a context of either entering or while holdingat n+2 or higher. Thus there is no N test done during Wait bars.


The sources of the M doji are then at n+1 or at n+2.

At n+1 : it involves alpha and L.
What is alpha ?

Alpha is defined on sheet 1 as a Dom bar that stays above trough.

So in n+1, we can arrive to Doji from alpha which is a Dom bar above trough. By definition, a Dom bar has a volume > prior bar. The first problem is that on sheet 10, alpha is this time defined as below lock in, above trough. Below lock in is non-Dom. Contradiction.


Also, in n+1, we can arrive at M from L. L is above lock in, above trough. Clear.


Although the alpha part creates dissonance to me for now, I see the link between those two texts and the « you can test doji before or after lock in ». Before would be alpha >>M>>N and after would be L>>M>>N.


Next is n+2 column or greater.

At n+2 it involves gamma. In sheet 1 gamma is defined as two or more Dom but stays above trough. Again, this is a dominance situation. I expect the same problem as with alpha, coming soon.

So in n+2, we can arrive to M from gamma which is in sheet 10 defined as below lock in and above trough. There it is.
Or we could arrive at M via W which is a lock in above trough situation.


Let’s explicitate a bit more things to see if I can clear up the trouble. What is the trough in question, as exposed four times here.
First of all, I must say that my comprehension is that if either we’re entering on n+1 or holding on n+2, it means we’re in a Dom situation.
Secondly, I must say the alpha and gamma definition both sound like S node possibility. I remember the « volume is not peaking but remains above prior trough ». It also reminds me when recently I talked about the pattern, the first trough of a given trend, the fact that in price we use declining H’s to establish short tl’s, increasing L’s to define long tl’s, and what if I thought the same way for volume, assimilating L’s to troughs and H’s to peaks, and that would mean for a trend to continue, being as volume needs to increase, then it would mean we need for that to see troughs going higher etc…

It reminds me a very long channel of things.

So… in the alpha, beta, gamma, W and L, which is the trough in question ? Seems like it’s the prior. From memory, when R fails to be Dom and meet lock in and be W, then there are two possible ends : either volume not only does not peak but it also drops below prior trough, and that’s J/K choosen for X and feedback to A ; or in spite of seeing volume decline below lock in it remains above prior trough.

This prior trough can be of two natures, in terms of OOE. Either it’s the first one of the trend, so the one that initiates the trend = 2 of B2B/R2R = T1 leading to BO,T1 = between ftt/pt1 to pt2 ; or it’s another one. And apparently, what I DD from all I have in mind atm, is that if we can revert to S after « R fail », it’s because we remain above prior trough. If prior trough was the first one ,it means we’re on road towards a second trough. But as long as it has not appeared we remain in the same pattern, therefore the same trend. From here, two possible ends. Either volume makes a trough above prior one, or it drops below.

I notice here that what would make sens would be to think about a typo on sheet1 for alpha and for gamma and the following would make more sense : non-Dom but stays above trough. This would be congruent with the definition encountered on sheet 10 being as it’s stated that both alpha and gamma deal with NO LOCK IN. So NON-Dom….let’s see if this is correct later.

Back to the move. So after the first trough, volume will make another one. It can be below or above prior one which was the initiator of the trend.
Here, it seems clear that to say volume increases and we’re still in the same trend, we need to see higher troughs.


So I DD, in a nutshell, that for alpha, gamma, L and W, we’re talking about prior trough. Last trough. Back to sheet 10 and let’s see.


So the first two out of four sources of doji are in n+1. Either a non-Dom bar remaining above trough or a lockin bar above trough (obvious).
Samely, the two other sources of doji are in n+2 and they are the same volume moves. Their name, for being in another column, are respectively gamma and W.


The fact that there is no consideration here of a doji on DEC volume below trough, confirms to me that there is no doji test done when on a wait bar.


After that, the sheet deals with a test. Tha’ts the second point of the sheet. The test is defined as « at tick plus one » trough doji. Either this is trickyly said, or I need to improve my English. Anyway I don’t understand what it is meant here.

I largely prefer the definition of the 3x5 cards that says « pas sis when price moves through or beyond open ». This way I understand.

After that, we learn that the test is done once per bar. This reminds me someone (I don’t remember who) who thought in the ExSc thread that we were to perform the test and log the N test as many times as close is back to open. Someone else had answered it could be (the N test) done only once per bar.
And here on the sheet, even more clear : if the test is done more than one time, then Exit and go to A. What does this precisely mean ? -> if the test is done more than one time. When is the test done ? when C=O. At the very first time it does so along the bar, if we’ve entered or we’re holding, hen we do N test. Then either it will pass so price will, much like price crossing a rtl, cross the O level ; this will be pass ; or it will not and will be back towards the same initial direction. This would be fail.

This is, I believe clear. Very clear. Let’s see the rest of the sheet.


There are two kind of PASS.

The first is explained as a cross of O w/ change color relative to determined bar color (open to open determination). Again, the formulation into parenthesis brings me confusion. I don’t know if this means from open to prior bar to open of current bar, or if it means from O of a single bar then backwards to the same O. I think, most likely the second hypothesis is true. In this wase, we’d have a color defined by the bar during the time price went « from open to open ». If the first move was whort, then the « determined bar color » would be red. And then, a change color relative to that would be black.
I may be psyching myself out here, but I know my English comprehension and expression are limited AND I know JH did everything to produce confusion all the time, to force one to think and DD on their own….in any case, this is tiring…

Deepbreath.


Ok, so. First PASS is ok. Second PASS is explained as : Go to E (make bar n+1) via P (if not J or K via X), then choose F or G. By retaking the 3x5 cards we can complete : if non Dom results w/ a PASS, we exit at J or K. But if Dom is there w/ a PASS, we feedback to E via P and select F or G.. This is the second PASS of sheet 10.
So in sheet 10, the first PASS is for non-Dom ; the second PASS is for Dom. I notice I’m writing first pass and second pass. This may help for sheet 11.


As for Fail ; this is just when at M, price can’t pass through open.


I feel overwhelmed and I don’t even remember what I was searching, nor which was the doubt(s) I had with all this. I need to reread prior post(s).


To be continued…

 

Ok, I will for now let all this IBGS/Doji doubts aside for now. I'll give it a rest.

Of course, if anyone knowing and understanding what i'm doing, have the questions that I must ask myself to solve this out, feel free to interact.

I'll focus now on