What the 11-14 September window actually did
Verified daily OHLC for the frozen window. The pre-registered test is a strict
7-day pivot on the daily LOW: LOW[t] < LOW[t-1..t-3] AND
LOW[t] < LOW[t+1..t+3].
| Date | Daily LOW | Qualifies? |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Sep (T0, New Moon) | $76,162.91 | yes |
| 12 Sep (T+1) | $77,045.00 | no |
| 13 Sep (T+2) | $76,498.38 | no |
| 14 Sep (T+3) | $76,367.38 | no |
The formal result: a qualifying strict local low DID form, on
2026-09-11, at NM+0. Its low of
$76,162.91 is strictly below the lows of 8, 9 and 10 September
($77,635.69 / $77,768.15 / $76,470.64) and strictly below the lows of 12, 13 and
14 September ($77,045.00 / $76,498.38 / $76,367.38).
Four distinct things, which must not be conflated:
- The qualifying strict local low - 2026-09-11, NM+0.
This, and only this, is the formal pre-registered test. - Later lower lows within +/-7 days - 15 Sep ($74,944.59, NM+4),
16 Sep ($74,995.52, NM+5) and 17 Sep ($75,945.55, NM+6). Real, and recorded.
Under the pre-registered rules they do not invalidate the 11 Sep pivot. - The absolute cycle low - $74,944.59 on
2026-09-15. A separate measure, reported separately. - The informal NM+0.4 idea - private, never pre-registered, and intraday.
It has its own record and must never stand in for the formal test.
Maximum upside from the qualifying pivot, measured per the protocol at
exactly 7 days from the pivot date: a high of
$81,331.77, +6.79%.
The 14- and 21-day measurements are not yet due and are recorded as pending
rather than estimated.
On the August comparison. August's qualifying pivot was NM+2, September's was
NM+0. The two cycles then behaved differently, and the difference is the
interesting part:
- August: the pivot at $62,487.70 on 14 August was also the cycle low. No
lower low followed within +/-7 days. Pivot and bottom coincided. - September: the pivot at $76,162.91 on 11 September was not the cycle
low. Deeper lows followed at NM+4, +5 and +6, bottoming at $74,944.59.
So a qualifying pivot sometimes marks the bottom and sometimes does not. That is
precisely why "a strict local low formed" and "the cycle bottomed" are kept as
two separate claims. Anyone reporting only the first would have called September
a clean success; anyone reporting only the second would have called it a failure.
Both readings would be wrong.