Define the event before opening the result
A condition saying any observed price below 100 differs from a condition saying the period closes below 100. Preserve the exact event definition and the observation period. Replacing one with the other after reading a result changes the question rather than resolving it.
Also state whether the threshold comparison is strictly below or at-or-below. An exact value of 100 has different classifications under those two rules. A personal thesis journal should retain the original rule, its version and the instant at which that version was recorded.
Use one fictional bar to expose the difference
Take a supplied teaching bar with open 102, high 103, low 99 and close 101. If these values cover the stated period under the model, the low supports that the price went below 100. The close does not satisfy a close-below-100 rule because it is 101.
The bar alone does not give the exact time of the low, the path between observations or an executable fill. Do not transform a threshold observation into an exit receipt. Data resolution and execution evidence are separate questions.
| Fictional rule | Relevant value | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| Any price below 100 during covered bar | Low 99 | Condition observed |
| Period close below 100 | Close 101 | Condition not observed in this bar |
| Exact event time or executed exit | Not supplied by OHLC | Unknown |
An evidence gap does not prove that a condition never occurred
Suppose only the closing value was captured while the rule concerned any intraperiod price. That observation cannot resolve the whole interval. Record insufficient coverage instead of classifying the rule as untriggered because no lower value appears in your small sample.
Similarly, one fully covered bar does not establish what happened in an adjacent missing bar. Keep the requested review interval and the supplied coverage beside the result. A source outage or partial export must remain visible in the conclusion.
Check that the bar represents the price your rule names
A rule about one price definition cannot automatically be evaluated with another. For example, a record labelled last trade, a quote midpoint and a separately supplied reference value are not interchangeable observations. Keep the rule’s named measure and the source field side by side. If the source does not identify the measure, preserve that uncertainty. Matching the numeric threshold does not repair a mismatch in the thing being measured or prove that the required event was observed.
Report the rule, evidence type and narrow conclusion
A useful UK-local review retains the full dates and offsets, the rule version, the values used and the coverage limit. Record a changed opinion as a changed opinion rather than retroactively calling it a condition that was present in the original plan.
This example helps distinguish supported invalidation evidence from a vague retrospective explanation. It does not validate a thesis, prescribe a threshold, establish a loss limit or authenticate a trade. Every value here is fictional and the linked market commentary offer is separate.
The optional link below leads to this site's separate crypto signals and Telegram updates offer. The record method is usable without that offer. It does not independently verify the offer, establish country eligibility or turn the teaching example into an actual transaction.
Primary sources and scope
- RFC 3339: Internet timestamps
Full dates and explicit numeric offsets; a timestamp representation does not prove clock synchronisation. Checked 2026-10-21.