Market Scenario Projector

Features

• Impulse Strength — current move size relative to ATR
• Efficiency — how directly price traveled (net displacement vs. total path)
• Acceleration — recent vs. prior half-impulse velocity (speeding up or slowing down)
• Swing Structure Bias — HH/HL vs. LH/LL alignment from stored pivots, checked against the current move direction
• Level Zone / Proximity — nearby pivots within Level Cluster Width ATR of the nearest barrier are merged into a zone, scored by recency-weighted touch count (Level Recency Influence) instead of a flat count, bounded by Structure Lookback and Maximum Level Distance ATR
• Rejection / Exhaustion Evidence — over the last Rejection Lookback Bars, scores wick rejection, failed closes and body compression at bars that actually touched the barrier (within Rejection Touch Distance ATR)
• Pullback Zone — structural support/resistance, ATR-expected retracement (Fallback Pullback ATR) and impulse Fib retracement (Impulse Retracement Ratio) converge on one zone instead of a single price
• Three scenario scores normalized to 100%, each drawn as a two-leg projected line (now → decision point → target) from a single shared origin, forming a scenario tree
• Dominance-ranked display — the single highest-weight scenario draws thick and opaque, the other two thin and faded, so the chart doesn’t read as three equally-weighted lines
• Barrier and pullback zones drawn as shaded boxes (zone bounds) with a reference line at the anchor price, not just a single line
• Context gate — no projection is drawn until the combined score clears Minimum Context Quality; it is not a trade-quality or probability measure
• Optional internal metrics readout (Show Internal Metrics) for reading the raw component scores behind a projection
• Optional outcome recorder (Enable Outcome Recorder) — tracks each fresh setup forward bar-by-bar to resolution and logs entry features + outcome via log.info(), for offline calibration of the currently heuristic weights

Scoring

Component	Feeds
Impulse Strength	Direct (+), Pullback (+), Failure (as 1−Impulse)
Efficiency	Direct (+), Pullback (+), Failure (as 1−Efficiency)
Acceleration	Direct (+), Pullback (as 1−Acceleration), Failure (as 1−Acceleration)
Structure Alignment	Direct (+), Pullback (+), Failure (as 1−Structure)
Level Quality	Direct (as 1−Quality, weak barrier favors breakout), Pullback (+), Failure (+, strong opposing barrier)
Level Proximity	Direct (+), Pullback (+)
Rejection Evidence	Direct (as 1−Rejection), Pullback (+), Failure (+)

directScore, pullbackScore and failureScore are each a fixed weighted sum of the components above (weights sum to 1.0 per scenario), then normalized against their own total to produce the three percentages shown on the chart.

These percentages are heuristic evidence weights, not historically calibrated probabilities. “Direct 61%” means 61% of the current scenario evidence favors that path — it does not mean 61% of comparable historical setups resolved that way. See todo.md for the roadmap toward actual calibration.

Level zones

Instead of scoring a single pivot price, the barrier’s quality function clusters every stored pivot within Level Cluster Width ATR of the anchor level into one zone (zoneLow/zoneHigh) and weights each touch by recency — a touch from Level Recency Influence × the decay curve (half-life ≈ half of Structure Lookback) ago counts less than a fresh one, so a level tested repeatedly long ago doesn’t score the same as one tested repeatedly right now. The zone is drawn as a shaded box; the dashed line still marks the exact anchor price used for target search. Additional level sources beyond pivots (breakout level, role reversal, gap, previous day/week high/low) and freshness-as-“used up” (rather than recency) are deliberately deferred — see todo.md.

Rejection / exhaustion evidence

At bars whose high/low actually came within Rejection Touch Distance ATR of the barrier during the last Rejection Lookback Bars, the engine scores: how much of the bar’s range was upper/lower wick beyond the body, how often the close failed to hold beyond the barrier, and how compressed the bodies of those touching bars are (exhaustion). This is a same-bar-reactive signal — two weak rejection candles at the barrier visibly shift weight from Direct toward Pullback/Failure, not just the slower-moving impulse/structure/level scores. Close location, engulfing and inside-bar detection are deliberately deferred — see todo.md.

Pullback zone

The pullback reference is no longer a single price. Three candidates are computed — the structural support/resistance on the opposite side of the barrier (when one exists nearby), an ATR-based fallback (Fallback Pullback ATR), and a Fib-style retracement of the current impulse move (Impulse Retracement Ratio, default 0.382) — and their min/max span becomes the pullback zone (drawn as a shaded box). The anchor price used for target/failure search still prefers the structural candidate when available, falling back to the midpoint of the two estimates otherwise.

Outcome recorder

When Enable Outcome Recorder is on, every fresh setup (a confirmed bar where validSetup turns true, or the direction flips while it is already true) opens a tracked case. Resolution also runs only on confirmed bars. From the next confirmed bar onward, that case is checked against its own target/failure/pullback-zone levels using only each new bar’s OHLC — no lookahead, exactly like watching a setup play out live. It resolves as:

• Direct — target reached without the pullback zone ever being touched first
• Pullback — pullback zone touched at some point, then target reached
• Failure — the failure/invalidation level is touched before the target
• Unresolved — none of the above within Projection Bars

Within a single bar, if more than one of these could apply at once (Pine has no intrabar sequencing — a bar’s high and low happened in some order the OHLC data doesn’t reveal), Failure takes priority over a pullback-zone touch, which takes priority over Target. This is a documented pessimistic approximation, not a precise reconstruction.

On resolution, one log.info() line is emitted with the six entry component scores (impulse, efficiency, acceleration, structure, level quality, rejection), Context Quality, all three entry weights, dominance gap, target/failure/pullback distances and pullback-zone width in ATR, bars-to-resolve, symbol and timeframe — export via the Pine Logs panel for offline analysis. This is a data-collection tool only; nothing about scoring or display changes when it’s on. See todo.md for what happens with the collected data (feature-bucketed conditional probabilities, confidence, regime split) once enough cases exist.

Reading the chart

Three projected paths run from the current bar through a decision point (Decision Point Bars) to a target (Projection Bars):

• Direct (green/red, solid + arrow) — impulse carries through the nearest barrier toward the next level
• Pullback (blue, solid + arrow) — price retraces to the nearest support/resistance on the opposite side before resuming
• Failure (warning-orange, dashed) — retraces past the pullback level toward the next level in the opposite direction

All three legs share the same origin point (xNow, current close) — the tree branches from there. All scenarios use identical width/transparency tiers. A leading scenario is drawn thick (width 4) and at low transparency (8%) only when its lead over the runner-up clears Minimum Dominance Gap % (default: 8 pp); otherwise every shown path remains thin (width 2) and noticeably faded (45%) as a mixed state. A dominant Failure read gets the same visual weight as a dominant Direct or Pullback read. Scenarios below Minimum Scenario Weight % are not drawn at all. The shaded boxes mark the barrier and pullback zones; the dashed/dotted lines mark their anchor prices.

Every text label (Direct/Pullback/Failure chips and the summary box) uses white text on a solid, scenario-tinted dark background (dark green/red for Direct depending on direction, dark blue for Pullback, dark amber for Failure) — all measured 12.9–16.3:1 WCAG contrast, past AAA. An earlier version tried colored text on a black background instead; that measured “fine” by the raw contrast ratio too, but colored text at small sizes reads worse in practice than its number suggests (anti-aliased colored glyphs look fuzzy, and green/red is a known problem for red-green color blindness, which contrast-ratio math doesn’t account for) — white text is used everywhere for that reason. Each chip still carries a symbol for fast, color-independent recognition: ▲/▼ for Direct (direction-aware), ↩ for Pullback, ✕ for Failure — the same symbols appear in the summary text. Context is shown as a 10-segment block bar (▰▰▰▰▰▰▱▱▱▱ 57%) instead of “57/100”; the summary calls the raw direction an upward/downward impulse rather than a bullish/bearish conclusion. The summary box’s background itself blends from neutral dark gray to a saturated dark green/red as Context rises; it remains dark so white text keeps full contrast.

What this is not

A directional signal or an entry trigger — it does not fire alerts, gate entries, or claim a single “correct” outcome. It’s a scenario-weighting overlay meant to be read alongside the rest of the chart. See todo.md for what’s still deliberately left out (additional level sources, close-location/engulfing/inside-bar rejection signals, historical outcome calibration).