summary: what's in play and the report page can show different percentages for the same setup on the same ticker. that's expected — WIP runs a shorter lookback and narrows history to the sessions that match today, while the report page shows the full sample for the date range you selected. here's how to reconcile them.

this one comes up when you've got WIP open on one screen and the report page on the other. the IB card on WIP says the low breaks first the great majority of the time. the report page, same ticker and same session, gives a noticeably lower number. it looks like one of them has to be wrong.

neither is. they're answering two different questions — and the difference between those questions is the whole reason to have both open.

the report page asks: across every session in the date range I selected, how often did this happen? one filter — the setup condition itself. it's a historical summary.

what's in play asks: given what this session has already done, how often did this happen on the sessions that looked like this one? it's a live read.

narrowing history down to the sessions that resemble today shrinks the sample — and a smaller, more specific sample gives a different percentage. that isn't the data drifting. that's the point of WIP.

start here. it's the most common cause and the fastest to check.

WIP offers four lookback options: 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. the report page's date-range selector goes further still — past 2 years, and all the way back to May 2018 if you set the dates manually. so if your report page is on 5 years and WIP is on 6 months, you aren't comparing the same market history.

try it yourself on any report: pull the same question over 2 years, then 6 months, then 3 months. you'll get three different answers, several points apart, from the same ticker, session, and setup — and none of them is wrong. they're three different samples of the market.

same ticker, same session, same IB window, same question. three date ranges, three answers, none of them wrong. before digging any further, get both onto the same window. you can move either one — raise WIP to 1 or 2 years, or bring the report page down to whatever WIP is on. the only asymmetry is at the deep end: 2 years is WIP's maximum, so if you want more history than that, the report page is the only side that can go there.

this is the part that surprises people. the historical stat on a WIP card is tied to the exact setup state that card is tracking right now — not to the report's overall distribution.

so as the session develops and conditions lock in, the pool of comparable history narrows, and the percentage moves with it. a card you looked at at 9:45 AM and the same card at 11:00 AM are not built on the same set of past sessions.

put plainly: WIP is looking at past history that fits the specific criteria live on that card right now. the more criteria that lock in as the session develops, the tighter the matching set of past sessions gets — which is why the percentage moves through the day, and why the occurrence count behind it shrinks at the same time.

one case of this is already documented: some WIP rows are the by-weekday variant of a report, so the stat is for that weekday specifically — a couple of dozen occurrences on Tuesdays, say, rather than the whole sample. that both narrows the history and shrinks the count behind the percentage. the report name in the row tells you which variant you're on.

what you set in one place doesn't carry to the other. a 60-minute IB on WIP against a 30-minute IB on the report page is two different setups, and they will disagree.

how much? run the same question on the same ticker and window, changing only the IB length from 60 minutes to 30, and the answer moves by several points. the window length alone is enough to explain a gap you might otherwise read as a bug.

check the card's custom settings — IB window, ORB duration, opening candle size, gap fill threshold — against the report page's customize panel, and match them.

two more settings that quietly change the answer:

once WIP has narrowed to the sessions that match today, the count behind the percentage can get small. at 30 occurrences, one session moves the rate about 3 points. at 9 occurrences, one session moves it 11.

always read the occurrence count next to the rate, and use the frequency filter on WIP to drop cards with thin history off the dashboard automatically.

there are three surfaces in play here, not two — and the third is the one that catches people out: the standalone what's in play dashboard, the historical table on a report page, and the small what's in play card at the top of that report page.

that card is a live read for the ticker and session on the report — the same kind of read the WIP dashboard gives you, sitting inline so you can compare live conditions against the historical table underneath without switching pages.

the card follows the report — both the session you've selected and the lookback period you've set. it also carries a session reference so you can confirm which window it's reading.

that lookback point matters for comparing the two: the standalone WIP dashboard runs on its own selected lookback (see the lookback section above), while the card inherits whatever the report is set to. so if the report is on 2 years, the card's historical read is on 2 years too — and it will differ from the dashboard for that reason alone, with nothing wrong on either side.

if the card and the WIP dashboard disagree about today's live state, check the session reference first. the two pages have independent session selectors, so the usual answer is that they're pointed at different windows.

if you remember this behaving differently, you're not imagining it. the card used to read the default session's live data rather than the session selected on the report — so running a custom session on a report could produce a card that contradicted both the WIP dashboard and your TradingView indicator. that's been fixed, and the session reference was added at the same time. if you're still seeing a card that disagrees with the reference it displays, that's worth reporting through the chat widget.

if a gap survives all four, what's left is the live conditioning: WIP reading a narrower, today-specific slice of the same history. that's expected behavior, not a mismatch to fix.

use the report page when you're studying a setup and building rules around it. the larger sample is the more stable foundation, and it's the number to anchor your plan to.

use WIP during the session for what today has already told you. it's the more specific read, and it updates as the session develops.

the practical approach: anchor on the report page's number, then let WIP's live read sharpen it or challenge it. if the two disagree sharply and WIP's occurrence count is thin, trust the anchor.

which number is correct? both. they're different samples answering different questions — one unconditional and historical, one conditioned on today.

can I set WIP to a 2-year lookback? yes — 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years are all available. 2 years is the maximum; for more history than that, use the report page.

I matched the lookback and they still don't agree. check the session next, then the subreport, then the per-report customization. anything left after those is WIP's live conditioning.

do my WIP customizations change the report page? no. the two are independent — what you set in WIP applies only to WIP.

is a big gap a bug? usually not. if the lookback, session, subreport, and settings all match, the occurrence count is healthy, and the numbers are still far apart, that's worth flagging — reach out through the chat bubble with the ticker, session, report, and both numbers.

bottom line: WIP and the report page run on the same underlying data and ask different questions of it. match the lookback first, then the session, subreport, and settings — and read whatever gap survives as WIP telling you something specific about today.