Every claim we have tested
62 of them. Folklore people repeat, reports this industry sells, and the questions we had to answer about our own method. Each one links to the page that owns it, and each one carries the two things that decide whether a percentage means anything: how much data it stands on and what it was measured against.
What a report here has that a report elsewhere does not
Nothing in this list is a chart with a number under it. Every comparison is run against a control — a matched move, a permuted grid, a direction-randomised day, an era the selection never saw — because the control is usually where the finding dies. "Weekend gaps fill 88% of the time" is true; a size-matched midweek move fills 88% too, and that second number is the whole report.
Why the ones that failed are still here
Most of this list is negative. The gap does not fill more than an ordinary move, yesterday's high does not hold more than an arbitrary level, the opening range fires every single day, the trading day of the month produces nothing at all, and holding a flagged window longer loses at every horizon we tried. Those were all things we wanted to find, and publishing them is the only reason to believe the handful that survived. A catalogue that only ever confirms its author is not evidence of anything except the author.