Eight factors. One score.
Setup quality, trend, location, momentum, volume, structure and volatility — each weighted, each traced to a measurement, cross-referenced across four timeframes and compressed into a single 0–100 read.
Every factor, its weight, and a switch
Turn one off and the score recomputes. This is what we mean when we say the number isn't a black box.
- Factors in play
- 8 / 8
- Weight in play
- 110 / 110
Confirming factors add their weight, conflicts subtract it, neutrals abstain. The total is normalised over the weight still switched on — that is the entire model.
Sample The weighting is real: these are the engine's eight factors at the engine's weights, and the score recomputes from them as you switch rows off. What is a worked example is the readings — whether each factor confirms or conflicts here belongs to one fixed chart.
Switch any factor off and watch the score move. These eight are the entire model — not a sample of it, and the weights are the ones the engine uses.
This is a fixed sample so the weighting is inspectable. On a live chart every state comes from the actual price data, and the same eight factors are read across four timeframes.
Score a real chartA fixed sample, so the weighting stays inspectable across visits. On a live chart every factor state comes from the actual price data.
Why one score beats twelve indicators
Not because the score knows more — because you have a finite number of decisions in you, and the hard right edge of the chart is where they run out.
The cognitive-load argument
Twelve indicators do not give you twelve pieces of information. They give you one piece of information and eleven opportunities to talk yourself into it. By the fourth chart of the session the trader is not reading indicators — they are hunting for the one that agrees with what they already want to do.
A single weighted score removes the hunt. It was computed before you had an opinion, and it does not change because you looked at it again.
The weighting philosophy
Signals that agree push the score up. Signals that conflict pull it down — they are not quietly dropped, which is the difference between a score and a sales pitch. A setup with strong structure and a location problem should read in the seventies, not the nineties, and it does.
Weights come from which families have historically carried resolved outcomes, not from which ones look impressive in a feature list.
The confluence checklist, retired
The classic printable checklist — every signal worth ticking, grouped by family, free and unbranded enough to actually use. The footer reads: “Or stop ticking boxes — ORIN weighs all eight in two seconds.”
What each score band actually did
A score is a claim about the future. These are the claims checked against what happened — published whether or not they flatter us.
These read as dashes because the live sample is not yet large enough to publish a number that would mean anything, and inventing one is exactly the behaviour this page exists to argue against. Every graded setup that resolves fills them in. The method, and the current sample, are on the calibration page.
See the full calibration pageWhat a score can't tell you
The number compresses evidence. It does not compress judgement, and the difference matters most on the setups that score well.
It has no view on your exposure
An 86 on a fifth correlated long is not an 86. The engine reads one chart at a time; portfolio-level risk is a question it does not see and does not pretend to answer.
It cannot price news
Scheduled earnings, a central bank, an unscheduled headline — none of it is in the price data the score reads. A high score into a known event is a high score into a coin flip.
Weights are ours, not yours
If your methodology weights liquidity sweeps above structure, our number will disagree with yours. Custom weighting is unshipped; a Guru Rule Pack is the current way to grade against a specific school.
A conflicted score is information
A 62 with strong structure and bad location is not a weak setup badly measured — it is an honest read of a genuinely mixed picture. Traders who only respect scores above 80 will misread that.
The engine's job is to make the evidence legible in one number and then get out of the way. Anything further — whether to take it, at what size, with what still open — is the part that belongs to you, and the trade plan generator is where it gets written down.
Questions traders actually ask
Confluence is when several independent signals point the same way at the same price. One indicator agreeing with itself is noise; structure, momentum, volume and order flow agreeing at one level is a reason. Confluence trading means waiting for that agreement instead of acting on any single trigger.
There is no magic count, and any number quoted without a sample behind it is invented. What matters is weighted agreement: three high-weight signals aligning beats eight low-weight ones. ORIN scores the weighted balance rather than counting ticks, then publishes how each score band actually resolved.
Eight weighted factors, each read across four timeframes: setup quality, trend alignment, location and reward:risk, entry location against the mean, volume confirmation, momentum, structural confirmation and volatility regime. The explorer on this page lists all eight with the weight the engine gives them, and you can switch any of them off.
Yes, and that is the point. Every signal is listed with its state, its weight and one line explaining what it read. Nothing is hidden behind a proprietary number — if a score is high, you can see exactly which signals carried it.
No. A high score means the evidence agrees; it says nothing about your risk tolerance, your open exposure, or whether news is due. ORIN produces analysis and a plan, never an instruction. The decision stays yours, and the journal records that you made it.
Not yet. Custom weightings are on the roadmap but unshipped, because a weighting scheme with no resolved outcomes behind it is a preference, not an edge. Guru Rule Packs let you grade against a published methodology in the meantime.