What G has been doing with regard to the "arithmetical integrity of a directional movement" (I like that; sounds professional) has to do with determining whether or not the directional movement is exhibiting the signs of reversal (God, this all sounds so textbooky). It has nothing to do with stops per se, trailing or otherwise. IOW, if price breaks the SL/DL by more than N points, then one should exit and prepare to enter the anticipated reversal. If the anticipated reversal doesn't show up, then he has to prepare to re-enter an anticipated continuation, though if price breaks the line by that much, he is more likely looking at a range, or chop.

I know you want all this to be rigid and mechanical, and I wish I could help. But it just isn't. It's not as if you haven't gone through all the stages just like you're supposed to, but I can't help but wonder if during the observation phase you were subconsciously thinking about entries and exits rather than focusing on nothing more than gathering information on the whys and whats and wherefores of price movement. You wouldn't be the first by any means. But the fact that you're so concerned about stops, particularly trailing stops, suggests that you're more concerned about yourself than about what price is doing. Once the trader is entered, one should forget about it and focus on price. If instead he's concerning himself with stops, then he's focused on his trade and his P:L, not on price's behavior. This results in the usual emotional responses that the observation phase and the trading plan are supposed to ameliorate, if not eliminate.

Therefore, my opinion regarding a trailing stop is that the subject is irrelevant. If price is doing what you expect it to do, just leave it alone. If it isn't, then exit the trade. The work that G has been doing helps to define one's expectations regarding proper price behavior.