School Disagreements in Bazi Cases
Compare school disagreements on the same Bazi case with fixed inputs, explicit definitions, separate reasoning chains, and no forced consensus.
Overview
A case is a useful place to compare Bazi schools only when every method receives the same input chart and question. Define each school’s source, reference point, terminology, decision order, thresholds, exceptions, and scope. Run the methods independently and locate the first step where they diverge—for example, Month-Command interpretation, strength classification, structure formation, climate priority, Useful-God selection, Nayin relevance, or timing. Report agreement and disagreement without counting shared evidence twice or combining incompatible outputs. OpenFate may state an editorial integration policy, but it must not be represented as historical consensus. A reader should be able to reproduce each path and see why the conclusions differ.
At a glance
- Comparison control
- Same chart snapshot, uncertainty scenarios, and question
- Method record
- Source, reference, definitions, order, thresholds, and exceptions
- Divergence fields
- Strength, structure, climate, Useful God, Nayin, or timing
- Required output
- Separate evidence chains and first divergence point
- Synthesis status
- OpenFate editorial policy, not universal historical consensus
- Invalid shortcut
- Majority vote, favourable-answer selection, or blended score
Control the chart and question
Use one versioned four-pillar snapshot, identical uncertainty scenarios, and the same narrowly stated question for every method. Do not let one school use corrected data unavailable to another.
Separate calculation differences from interpretation differences. If a school requires a different calendar convention, report that as an explicit input branch.
- Freeze shared inputs.
- Expose convention-dependent chart changes.
Document each method before running it
Record source or lineage, reference point, definitions, priority order, thresholds, exception rules, and expected output. Avoid reconstructing a method only from its result.
When a label such as Useful God or following structure differs in meaning, give each operational definition rather than forcing a common glossary entry.
- Predefine method contracts.
- Keep incompatible definitions distinct.
Locate the first divergence
Compare the reasoning chains step by step and mark where candidate selection, evidence weight, threshold, or priority first changes. Later disagreements may be consequences of that single branch.
Report shared evidence only once and do not treat downstream repetitions as independent votes. Preserve unresolved outputs.
- Trace disagreement to a decision point.
- Avoid double-counting consequences.
Do not manufacture consensus or certainty
A majority of methods is not an empirical probability, and agreement may reflect shared sources rather than independent confirmation. Disagreement does not license choosing the desired answer.
If OpenFate integrates methods, label the rule as editorial policy and retain alternatives. No school comparison can authorize high-risk personal decisions.
- No vote-based probability.
- Label synthesis and preserve alternatives.
Sources and editorial basis
- 《子平真詮》 (True Explanations of Ziping)《子平真詮》的月令取格、成敗、喜忌與救應提供結構法比較基線及明確判讀次序A major reference for month-command, structure, and contextual Bazi interpretation.
- 《滴天髓》 (Dripping Heavenly Marrow)《滴天髓》及註本的旺衰、氣勢、體用與制化提供另一方法軸，也顯示註家定義和優先級差異A core later text on Bazi balance, seasonal strength, and relational reading.
- OpenFate Editorial Methodology案例流派比較頁固定同一命盤和問題，分開方法卡與推理鏈，指出首次分歧而不平均不相容結果或製造共識OpenFate separates deterministic chart calculation, traditional interpretation, and modern editorial explanation.