As you work your way down the road to figuring it all out it might be useful to view various arguments about the how and why of price movement with detached skepticism. These theories are different expressions of the same phenomenon. Gann observed price movement and came away with a unique observation. And so did Elliott, Hurst, Gartley and a host of others. Different points of view about the same general process
A question worth considering is if these folks were to begin their work with today's 24 Hr micro time stamped tick data would they have arrived at the same conclusions or would they give us a different variation. Traders make the assumption that what may have worked many decades ago based on Daily and Weekly bars can be scaled down to sub-minute time frames or range, or tick, or volume, or Renko or whatever bars. Or more interestingly, is it appropriate to make trading decisions using theories based on observations of price movement in a trading environment that arguably no longer exists.
Sunsets have been painted for centuries. If your only understanding of sunsets came from paintings then the more paintings you saw the greater would be your understanding. But regardless of how many masterly paintings you looked at, it wouldn't be until you saw an actual sunset that you would approach a true understanding.
Accordingly, it is helpful to immerse yourself in as many varied approaches as you can stand. If you can get to the point where you can look past the theories and see what inspired their originators then your own understanding of price movement will mature. It is far better to make your trading decisions based on your understanding of what is true than to accept to be true what these pioneer traders handed us from a trading world very different from ours.
If there were a market gestalt then these different perceptions of the how and why of price movement only give us insight into an indivudual glimpse of a part of the whole. Not to mention that in comparison to those markets long gone, today's environment is constantly in motion, constantly evolving, constantly looping around to repeat itselfor not. And there's that HFT thing.
Getting back to your question, it shouldn't be a surprise if differing observations based on generally the same phenomenon would have areas of overlap. In keeping with a recommendation of detached skepticism, think of channels, harmonic patterns and anything Fib as having coincidental relationships rather than causal. Because particular behaviors may occur simultaneously doesn't argue that they are linked. We always want perfection but there is a reason why these approaches are called theories. We want to embrace them as a truth when in fact they only touch upon parts of the whole (that gestalt thing).
Your challenge is to get inside every theory you come across and to keep doing it until you see past the theory and can now see the whole.