I have to admit I don't much understand this view.
First of all, if there's a "correct" place to buy and sell it follows that there are "incorrect" places. I don't know how you can define correct and incorrect places, except by reference to those which offer a +EV trade (ie an edge) and those which don't.
Second, correctly managing an existing position is in principle no different from taking a position when you were previously flat. When you enter a trade, add or reduce size, or exit the trade entirely, you've done so because a discrete event has occurred that shifts your estimate of the trade odds. This is true whether you're trading fundamentally or technically, using chart PA or pure statistics/math, holding for seconds or years. The task is always and everywhere to identify those events, and correctly assess their impact on the odds of a favorable vs. adverse excursion.
None of this really has to do with risk management per se, which is a matter of 1) sizing appropriately to achieve a given max drawdown given estimated trade odds, with a generous safety margin for uncertainty, and 2) avoiding situations which can result in enormous unforeseen losses, from things like brokerage failure, crypto exchange hacking or other criminal activity, counterparty default, illiquidity, overnight gap risk, etc.
