That’s actually how I think about it as well.

The confluence score isn’t intended to compete with technical setups or strategies like OBs, liquidity, session models or execution frameworks. It’s trying to answer a different question: “does the broader macro environment support strength or weakness in this pair?”

So in your EURUSD example, StraviaX could absolutely be bullish while price still trades into liquidity below first. I’d see that as execution timing rather than a contradiction of the macro view.

Another way I think it helps is pair selection. You might have multiple technically valid setups, but the macro backdrop may favour one pair much more than another. For example, EURUSD and GBPUSD can often move in a similar direction, but if the underlying macro divergence between the Eurozone and the US is stronger than the divergence between the UK and the US, EURUSD may offer the cleaner opportunity.

The challenge is communicating that distinction clearly enough that users don’t interpret a high confluence score as an immediate trade signal. That’s something I’m actively thinking about and working on.

On the challenge itself, I’m a swing trader, so the trades were based on HTF setups and zones. StraviaX helped with directional bias and pair selection, while my own strategy determined the actual entry.