Wyckoff’s language can organise a price-and-activity hypothesis. It does not itself identify who traded or what follows next. A useful protocol lets another reader reproduce the conditions, their availability and the reason for rejecting a candidate. Here we turn those questions into an explicit fictional H1 model.

Treat the three laws as analytical questions

Wyckoff Analytics describes supply and demand, cause and effect, and effort versus result. These relate to price/volume interpretation and Point-and-Figure counts. They do not certify a signal’s accuracy. Consolidation duration alone is not a reproducible target formula.

Ask which Close crossed an already fixed boundary, which movement measure changed and whether activity uses the same clock and feed. A Point-and-Figure projection additionally needs box size, reversal rule and count extent; without them a target cannot be reconstructed.

The Composite Man is a heuristic, not a counterparty ID

The source presents an imagined operator as an analytical device. It does not establish one actual trader coordinating each market movement. Keep an observed boundary breach and return separate from an explanation such as deliberate bank stop-clearing.

A candle cannot independently identify the bank, orders or motives. Related SMC mechanics also require this distinction. Alternative explanations remain hypotheses unless supported by additional records.

Freeze a rule before the next observation

At the end of fictional Bid EUR/USD H1 bar t20, take minimum Low and maximum High from completed t1–t20. The supplied model inputs are 1.1000 and 1.1080, with mean activity 200. Freeze them; the twenty earlier OHLC rows are not reconstructed here. This is our experiment, not a complete Wyckoff accumulation detector.

Require Low below the lower boundary and Close back inside. Then require exactly the next H1 period to close above the candidate High and remain strictly above its Low. If that observed next period fails, reject the candidate; if its data is absent, retain an unresolved status rather than invent failure. See the separate phase map for terminology.

Our closed-bar Bid protocol
TimeAvailable inputsRule result
t20 closePrior minimum 1.1000, maximum 1.1080, mean activity 200Freeze region and baseline
t21 closeO 1.1010, H 1.1020, L 1.0990, C 1.1015; count 160Breach and Close-return candidate
t22 closeO 1.1015, H 1.1040, L 1.1010, C 1.1030; count 240Close above t21 High; Low above t21 Low
After t22, start t23Assigned fill quotes Bid 1.1030, Ask 1.1032Only now model purchase

The t21 breach is 10 pips at pip 0.0001. Its entire range is 30 pips, whereas its absolute body is 5. Those are three different movement measures. Choosing whichever best supports a story changes the definition after the event.

Fix the activity field and result denominator

MQL5 distinguishes VOLUME_TICK from VOLUME_REAL. A field name does not guarantee available data or complete global coverage. Record feed, units, time boundaries, missing records and seasonal activity. Twenty consecutive hours mix times of day rather than automatically comparing similar windows.

Counts 160/200 = 0.8 and 240/200 = 1.2 describe assigned activity, not bank buying. They are not entry conditions in this protocol. Adding a threshold creates a separate variant to compare prospectively. The volume guide distinguishes quote counts, exchange contracts and periodic positioning; participant identities are not recovered from these ratios.

Same assigned prices and counters, two denominators
O / H / L / CCountCount / bodyCount / range
A: 100 / 110 / 90 / 101100100 / 1 = 100100 / 20 = 5
B: 100 / 105 / 95 / 105200200 / 5 = 40200 / 10 = 20

Body-based comparison ranks A above B, 100 versus 40. Range-based comparison reverses this, 5 versus 20. Specify the movement measure and unit first. Division by a zero doji body is undefined, not infinitely strong proof of absorption; keep a missing ratio or another predeclared measure.

The next available record does not replace a missing hour

The protocol in this article requires confirmation on the exactly next H1 candle after the candidate. In a fictional export, t 21 starts 12:00 UTC, the 13:00 candle is missing, and the next record starts 14:00. The axis shows period starts, not complete-OHLC availability. t 21 ends 13:00; only then is its full OHLC known. Required t 22 covers 13:00–14:00, so evaluate it after 14:00. Full t 23 covering 14:00–15:00 is available only after 15:00.

Scroll sideways to see the full diagram

Export gap versus the exactly next confirmation periodCandidate t 21 starts 12:00 UTC; full OHLC is available after 13:00 closure. t 22 covers 13:00–14:00 but is missing. Full t 23 covering 14:00–15:00 becomes available after 15:00 and cannot replace t 22. The trial remains unresolved because data for the required next period is absent.Next record ≠ next periodH1 • period start • UTCt 21t 22t 2312:0013:0014:00CandidateperiodH1 missingfrom fileLaterrecordFull t 21: only at 13:00.Evaluate t 22 after 14:00: missing data.Full t 23: only at 15:00.Does not replace t 22.Status: missing data to evaluate t 22.Do not pass or reject by guessing.
The axis shows period starts. Complete OHLC becomes known only at the respective 13:00, 14:00 and 15:00 endings. The missing period retains its space. Removing it and joining available records conceals the gap, but the rule's requirement remains.

Assume candidate t 21 has H = 1.1020 and L = 1.0990. Available t 23 hypothetically has L = 1.1010 and C = 1.1040, passing those two price comparisons. We do not know whether t 22 passed. Check the complete record for the correct period first. If unavailable, retain a separate “missing data for evaluation” status under the predefined procedure; do not classify the trial as correct or incorrect by inference.

Assumptions: Fictional export for one symbol and source. H1 covers consecutive UTC hours; all t 22 data is absent. No cause for the gap or absence of actual market activity is assumed. Requiring the exactly next period is the rule chosen in the article’s H1 model, not a law of Wyckoff’s method.

A phase label does not pay execution costs

Model buying 10,000 EUR at Ask 1.1032, later selling at Bid and accounting in USD. One pip equals 1 USD for this exposure. Assume combined commissions 2 USD, no conversion, financing or other fees. These are hypothetical fills and costs, not a broker price schedule or recommended size.

Predeclare ordinary stop at Bid 1.0988, target Bid 1.1080 and time exit after t26 closes if neither earlier condition closes the position. Candidate Close is not a guaranteed fill. IG distinguishes a normal stop, which can slip, from its guaranteed-stop product. A complete execution procedure still needs to handle rejected orders and unavailable quotes.

Three mutually exclusive exits, not observed probabilities
Assigned fillExit BidPrice P/LNet after 2 USD
Target-level fill1.1080+48 USD+46 USD
Stop-level fill1.0988−44 USD−46 USD
Same stop, worse fill1.0980−52 USD−54 USD

Price P/L = 10,000 × (exit Bid − entry Ask), then subtract commission. The 2-pip entry spread is already in those prices. Do not subtract it again. Planned net gain/net loss is 46/46 = 1; if every losing fill instead followed the third assigned case, it would be 46/54, about 0.852.

For a separate idealised binary model with only those fixed net outcomes, break-even requires 50% wins for +46/−46, or 54% for +46/−54. This is algebra, not an estimated win rate or full-market expectancy. Different exits or costs change the calculation. Execution records cannot be replaced by a candle label.

Missing periods and ambiguous intrabar paths stay unresolved

The diagram uses t21 = 12:00–13:00 UTC, missing t22 = 13:00–14:00 and available t23 = 14:00–15:00. Full t21 is known after 13:00; full t22 would be evaluated after 14:00, and t23 after 15:00. The next file record does not replace the exactly next period.

Available t23 with Low 1.1010 and Close 1.1040 passes the two price comparisons against t21 High 1.1020 and Low 1.0990. It still supplies no knowledge of the missing t22 values. Check the correct interval, otherwise retain missing data without passing or rejecting the candidate.

After entry, O 1.1032, H 1.1085, L 1.0985, C 1.1040 includes both planned stop and target. Two possible quote paths, O→H→L→C and O→L→H→C, share that OHLC but reach the levels in opposite order. Finer data or a predeclared unresolved-case rule is necessary; do not select the favourable order after seeing the range.

Evaluate the complete rule without rewriting the history

Keep original boundaries, conditions and rejection reasons. Separate data errors, failed orders, valid signals with losses and violations of the protocol. A correctly executed rule can lose; another label does not retroactively rescue it.

Reveal history progressively, retain rejected and unresolved cases, and test later data without refitting. Report net outcomes, losses, drawdown and sample size along with win rate. Twenty demo trades, a week of observations or crossing 50% do not independently establish an edge. This operational article complements the phase map rather than asking the reader to infer a bank’s completed buying campaign.