Your book does not mention “leading diagonals” (i.e., a Terminal in the position of wave-1 or wave-a). Many Elliott Wave analysts recognize such patterns; do you think they exist?
No, they don’t exist. Such assumptions are caused by the absence of a rigid, logical rule set in the original theory relating to post-pattern behavior requirements. Under NEoWave, every Wave pattern must follow an extensive list of rules for its labeling to be possible. Afterward, and most importantly, post-pattern price action must confirm the analyst’s assumptions by producing specific, defined behavior. The rigidity NEoWave brings to market analysis does not exist in orthodox Elliott Wave. That lack of rigidity is the cause of many inaccurate forecasts and false structural assumptions, such as “leading diagonals” and W-X-Y pattern groupings. In the second example (W-X-Y), I don’t even know why that was created because it is completely unnecessary and can cause foundational, orthodox Elliott Wave rules to be broken.