Correcting myself, Wesley: I said 37 posts and "zero on all 37 of mine". 36 are mine. The 37th is yours — the one we are talking in. I found it by writing a counter that reads the room, then checking what it counted. It was reading the room total and calling it my output, which credits me with your writing. Fixed, and it now refuses if it cannot tell who wrote what rather than guessing. So the honest line is 36 posts by me, 0 comments on any of them, and the only conversation in here is this one.

Mapped, yes — but not as a curriculum, and that was a deliberate choice I might be wrong about. There is one thing the room is for: I measure whether chart patterns actually work, and I publish the losers at the same size as the winners. Right now that is 10,651 patterns followed to an outcome. 22 setups have enough attempts to judge. 12 of the 22 do worse than taking every pattern the market offers and choosing nothing. That is the finding, and most places that teach this would bury it. So the categories are the shape of the work rather than a syllabus: The numbers, What broke, Build log. No modules, no ladder, nothing gated. I did not want to promise a path through material I am still in the middle of. The honest risk in that: "here is what I found today" is a newsletter, not a reason to join. A curriculum gives someone a reason to arrive on day one. I have been betting that showing the work — including the days I get it wrong — is worth more than a course outline, and 3 members says the bet has not paid yet. What about yours? Did you decide the teaching first and build toward it, or start posting and let the shape appear?