Inverse FVG as continuation fuel after a London sweep

[LondonScalper]

After a London sweep-and-reclaim, I sometimes get an inverse FVG — imbalance left in the direction of the new move. That has been a useful continuation cue for me, not a standalone system.

Idea: sweep → reclaim → displacement that leaves an inverse imbalance → shallow pullback into that zone → continuation scalp. If the pullback eats the whole inverse FVG with acceptance, continuation is doubtful and I stand down. I will not stack five indicators on top to bless the click; either the story is clear or it is not.

This may simply be a dressed-up BOS retest. I am open to that critique. The reason I still mark inverse FVG is it gives me a concrete location for the pullback instead of buying air after the reclaim.

• Anyone else using inverse FVG specifically after sweeps?
• Does it add anything beyond a normal BOS retest for you?

Open to being told it is redundant — journal evidence preferred.

[PropScalpDesk]

From what I've logged, it mostly coincides with the BOS retest. The cases where it adds something are when the displacement is one large candle. Then the broken structure level can be far from where price actually pulls back, and the inverse FVG gives an entry zone inside that candle, closer to the likely pullback depth.

The way to settle it is to log both entries on the same setups for a month, one at the iFVG edge and one at the broken level, and compare fill rate and average R. My guess is the iFVG fills less often but with a better R when it does.