The story is almost irresistible
Every reader does what Rahul did. A board is four numbers, and a mind turns four numbers into a sequence of events without being asked to — it went down, then it came back, then it finished strong.
The sequence is the invention. Tuesday's board says the session reached ₹21.60 and reached ₹23.40. It does not say which of those came first, and nothing anywhere on the drawing does.
That is not a limitation of the drawing. It is a consequence of what a summary is: four prices were kept and the order was among the things thrown away in 04.01.01.
Three sessions. One board.
Each line is a different Tuesday. Every one opens at ₹22, reaches ₹23.40, sinks to ₹21.60 and closes at ₹23.10 — so every one draws the candle beside it.
If three sessions this different write one board, the session you picture when you look at a candle is yours, not the market's.
Three readings, all of them wrong to assert
Look at what the three paths do to Rahul's story. In the first, the sag came early and the recovery took all day — his account exactly. In the second, the high came first and the whole day was a decline that partly repaired. In the third, the price crossed its own ground twice and arrived at the same place.
One of those might be what happened. Two of them are not. The board cannot tell you which, and it will look identical whichever it was.
So the honest form of Rahul's sentence is not "prices sagged when the lorry came" but "the session reached ₹21.60 at some point, and finished at ₹23.10". The second is duller and it is the one that survives contact with the evidence.
A candle permits a story; it does not prove one. Several stories fit every candle, and the drawing is silent about which of them happened.
Two voices, kept apart
The practical habit is to read every candle in two voices and never let them run together.
What the candle records. It opened at ₹22, reached ₹23.40 and ₹21.60, and finished at ₹23.10, near the top of its range. Every clause is one of the four numbers or arithmetic on them.
What you are adding. Buyers took control; the low was rejected; the lorry caused it; tomorrow looks strong. Some of these may be true, and a person who was standing in the market might even know. None of them is on the board.
The habit costs nothing and it is the difference between reading a chart and being read by one. It is also the restraint the rest of this Part depends on — 04.05 and 04.06 are largely this lesson applied to bigger shapes.
When the order genuinely matters
Sometimes you actually need to know whether the high came before the low, and there is a real answer: use a shorter period.
Tuesday as one daily candle throws the order away. Tuesday as eight hourly candles keeps eight times as much of it — each hour with its own four numbers, in sequence. The order you wanted is recovered not by reading the daily candle harder, but by asking the data a finer question.
That is the trade the whole of Part 03 described in a different form: a summary discards something, and the fix is a different view rather than a bolder reading of the same one. There is no amount of staring that recovers a number the summary does not contain.
Rahul says: "The lorry arrived, prices sagged, and then buyers pushed it back up." How much of that does Tuesday's board support?
Recorded by the four numbers, or reconstructed by the reader?
A candle permits a story; it does not prove one. Every name in the chapters ahead is a label for a shape, and every shape permits several accounts of the session that made it. Keeping the recording and the reconstruction in separate sentences is not pedantry — it is the only reason the names stay useful once somebody starts selling you one.
That is the anatomy complete: one period, four numbers, two registers, a size that is only ever a comparison, one measurement that carries most of the meaning, and a story the drawing will let you tell but never confirm. The names begin next.