Soft adjectives hide hard structure
Replacing vague price action language with levels and behaviour you can re-check on the chart.
“Bullish,” “heavy,” “looking clean,” and “might reject” appear constantly in half-finished journals. They feel like technical analysis. They rarely survive a second reading.
In weekly chart reviews we circle soft adjectives and ask for the behaviour underneath. Did buyers defend a prior day low? Did a sweep fail to continue? Was acceptance above a level actually present, or only hoped for?
A translation habit
| Soft phrase | Replace with |
|---|---|
| Looks bullish | Buyers held above Tuesday’s high through the London open |
| Heavy sell-off | Three consecutive closes below the opening range with no reclaim |
| Might reject | Watch for a wick into 1.0840 that fails to close above |
The second column can be wrong. That is fine. Wrong-and-specific is trainable. Vague-and-comfortable is not.
Why this belongs in training
Technical analysis without accountable language turns into storytelling. Price action journaling is the discipline of writing claims the chart can confirm or deny. If you want practice under supervision, the weekly reviews exist for exactly that marking work.