Avoiding Overreach in Bazi Case Conclusions
Write Bazi case conclusions that match the evidence, separate chart claims from facts, state uncertainty, and avoid diagnoses, accusations, or guarantees.
Overview
A Bazi case conclusion overreaches when it claims more than the calculation and interpretive chain support. The chart can establish deterministic symbols under declared conventions and describe traditional relationships among them. It cannot directly establish personality, motive, diagnosis, wealth, legal status, fidelity, abuse, pregnancy, death, crime, employment suitability, or a future event. A responsible conclusion states the technical finding, method, evidence, counterevidence, uncertainty, scope, and what direct information would be needed for any real-world judgment. It uses calibrated language such as “within this method,” “supports a theme,” or “remains unresolved,” and keeps high-risk recommendations outside the chart.
At a glance
- Safe claim
- A calculated symbol or bounded relation under a named method
- Needs qualification
- Theme, timing correspondence, or comparative interpretation
- Unsupported fact
- Motive, conduct, diagnosis, status, identity, or exact event
- Required conclusion
- Method, evidence, counterevidence, uncertainty, and scope
- High-risk boundary
- Health, law, finance, safety, employment, and rights
- Revision trigger
- Changed input, source, definition, method, or direct evidence
Classify the claim before writing it
Separate deterministic chart data, derived technical relations, traditional interpretation, observed biographical facts, and advice. Each category has a different evidence standard.
Do not make an interpretive statement look factual through confident grammar or a precise date. Label the source and method at the point of use.
- Name the claim category.
- Match language to evidence type.
Require a complete evidence chain
Show how verified inputs produce symbols, how rules produce a technical function, and how that function relates to the narrow question. Include conditions and counterevidence.
Stop when the next step would require a fact the chart cannot contain. A long narrative does not repair a missing bridge.
- Make every inferential step visible.
- Stop at missing evidence.
Use calibrated and revisable language
Prefer “under this method,” “the chart contains,” “may frame a question,” “is contradicted by,” or “cannot be determined.” State scenario and confidence explicitly.
Avoid inevitable, destined, certainly, proves, will happen, dangerous, unfaithful, ill, criminal, rich, or suitable unless supported by independent evidence appropriate to that claim.
- Use scoped modal language.
- Remove unsupported identity and event labels.
Keep consequential action outside symbolic authority
Medical, legal, financial, employment, safety, and relationship decisions require direct evidence, consent, due process, and qualified support.
The case may suggest questions or records to review, but must not diagnose, accuse, delay care, pressure a relationship, or deny an opportunity.
- No chart-based diagnosis or accusation.
- No rights-affecting recommendation.
Sources and editorial basis
- 《淵海子平》 (Yuanhai Ziping)《淵海子平》的日主、十神、格局、六親與歲運語彙提供技術主張的傳統範圍，不能直接當現代事實證據A foundational Ziping reference for branch months, hidden stems, roots, and stem-branch relationships.
- 《三命通會》 (Sanming Tonghui)《三命通會》的命例與斷語須連同規則、文本層和歷史語境閱讀，不能無條件移植成現代診斷、指控或保證A historical compilation covering stems and branches, Ten Gods, Nayin, Shen Sha, and multiple classical pattern systems.
- OpenFate Editorial Methodology案例結論頁分類計算、解釋、事實與建議，要求有限語言和停止點，禁止命盤介入醫療、法律、財務、雇用或權利判斷OpenFate separates deterministic chart calculation, traditional interpretation, and modern editorial explanation.