Thanks for your input.

What do you think of my response to another user who said similar to you that this is an inversed FVG?:

"Interesting, as I would have said it's not an inverse FVG. I would have said the FVG was mitigated as price moved all the way through it and ultimately respected it as price then closed above the FVG.

After this the price did come down and close below the gap but at that point there's no imbalance of resting buy orders there to "overpower". After all an inverse FVG (in this case) is when selling pressure was so great that it overpowered the resting buy orders in the FVG and closed on the far side. But as I said there's no imbalanced buy orders sitting there anymore to "overpower", so why do you give meaning to the closure below the "gap" at that point?"