Repeated tests do not automatically make a level stronger
The source takes the opposite view: repeated attacks with only small reactions can weaken a level. Its analogy is a wall being hit repeatedly by a hammer — each new attack increases the chance that the barrier eventually fails.
Reaction quality matters
The lesson is not simply counting touches. It distinguishes a clean reaction from repeated churning around the same price. A level that is repeatedly crossed or “sawn through” without meaningful reaction is treated as increasingly unreliable for future use.
A practical break-count heuristic
The source uses an explicit discretionary heuristic: after roughly four genuine breaks, it normally stops treating the level as useful. This should be presented as that author's working rule, not as a universal statistical law.
Not every wick through the line is a break
A fast excursion through a level followed by an immediate return is not counted the same way as a sustained structural break. This distinction is important: otherwise the break counter would be inflated by noise.
Build a level-quality score
For automation, the qualitative framework can be converted into explicit fields: number of genuine breaks, number of clean rejections, time since last meaningful reaction, amount of overlap around the level and whether recent price action repeatedly churned through the area.
Keep volume claims separate unless they are defined
In this lesson the author deliberately does not use declining volume as the rule for whether a level will break. That topic is deferred. The level-strength model here is therefore structural, not volume-based.