Counterexample Analysis in Bazi Cases
Use counterexamples to test Bazi rule scope, hidden assumptions, thresholds, exceptions, alternate methods, and whether a claim needs revision.
Overview
A counterexample is a case that meets a stated rule but does not show the claimed result, or shows the result without meeting the rule. It is not an inconvenience to explain away. Freeze the rule, inputs, expected output, date window, and evidence standard before examining the case. Then test calculation error, missing conditions, scope limits, competing rules, selection bias, vague outcome definitions, and whether the claim itself is too broad. Record any revision as a new version and retest earlier cases. A valid exception can narrow a rule; an endless list of rescue clauses can make it unfalsifiable. Counterexample analysis improves transparency but does not by itself establish empirical validity.
At a glance
- Positive counterexample
- Rule present but claimed result absent
- Negative counterexample
- Result present but proposed rule absent
- First checks
- Data, calculation, definition, scope, and match rule
- Model checks
- Missing condition, competing rule, threshold, and selection bias
- Revision duty
- Version the rule and retest prior cases
- Failure mode
- Unlimited exceptions that prevent any possible disconfirmation
Freeze the rule and expected observation
Write the exact inputs, formation conditions, exclusions, chart layer, expected theme, date window, and evidence threshold used in the original claim.
Do not redefine the outcome after seeing the case. A broad symbolic phrase must be translated into an observable criterion before testing.
- Preserve the pre-test claim.
- Make the expected result observable.
Audit data and calculation before theory
Verify birth records, calendar policy, pillars, derived relations, timing sequence, and event evidence. A data error is not a theoretical exception.
If uncertainty creates several charts, test the rule across all of them. Report whether the counterexample survives reasonable input scenarios.
- Separate technical error from model failure.
- Run uncertainty scenarios.
Compare scope limits and competing explanations
Check omitted conditions, school-specific thresholds, competing relations, base rates, and whether the case was selected because it looked unusual.
An exception should be sourced and testable. Avoid inventing a rescue clause unique to one case, and record when the simplest conclusion is that the rule is too broad.
- Require testable exceptions.
- Allow the rule to be narrowed or rejected.
Version and retest every revision
Publish the old and new rule, reason for change, affected cases, and new stopping conditions. Re-evaluate earlier successes to ensure the revision did not simply protect the theory.
Counterexample work supports method quality, not proof of destiny. Consequential decisions still require direct evidence.
- Retest the complete case set.
- Do not claim validation from successful repair.
Sources and editorial basis
- 《子平真詮》 (True Explanations of Ziping)《子平真詮》的格局成敗、破格、救應及喜忌條件提供檢查規則缺件、例外與反轉條件的文本案例A major reference for month-command, structure, and contextual Bazi interpretation.
- 《三命通會》 (Sanming Tonghui)《三命通會》並列大量規則與命例，可用於比較適用範圍及競爭條件，但不能只摘錄成功對應A historical compilation covering stems and branches, Ten Gods, Nayin, Shen Sha, and multiple classical pattern systems.
- OpenFate Editorial Methodology反例分析頁固定原規則與結果標準，分類錯算、缺件、範圍和過寬主張，所有修正都版本化並回測OpenFate separates deterministic chart calculation, traditional interpretation, and modern editorial explanation.