Why Bazi Schools Reach Different Conclusions
Trace Bazi disagreements to different texts, definitions, priorities, thresholds, and scopes instead of hiding them behind a blended answer.
Overview
Bazi schools can reach different conclusions because they may use different calendar conventions, textual lineages, reference points, definitions, evidence priorities, formation thresholds, integration policies, and questions. One method may begin with Day-Master strength, another with Month-Command structure, another with climate regulation, Nayin, imagery, or transmitted formulas. Even shared words such as Useful God, transformation, following, or structure may denote different tests. A rigorous comparison freezes the same chart data, runs each method separately, records the first point of divergence, and reports both outputs with their assumptions. Disagreement is methodological information; it should not be erased by choosing the most favourable result or averaging incompatible categories.
At a glance
- Input differences
- Calendar, day boundary, time correction, and missing-data policy
- Definition differences
- Strength, structure, Useful God, transformation, and timing
- Priority differences
- Strength, structure, climate, Nayin, imagery, or formulas
- Comparison control
- Same chart data and question for every method
- Report output
- Method, assumption, divergence point, result, and uncertainty
- Invalid resolution
- Averaging incompatible categories or selecting by preference
Freeze the same deterministic inputs
Confirm calendar conversion, time zone, day boundary, true-solar policy, and four pillars before comparing interpretation. Otherwise a data difference is mistaken for a school disagreement.
Record unresolved birth-time or historical-time-zone uncertainty and run the same scenarios through every method. Do not give one school privileged input.
- Use one auditable chart snapshot.
- Apply identical uncertainty scenarios.
Compare definitions before conclusions
Create a glossary for strength, structure, Useful God, transformation, following, climate regulation, Nayin, and any school-specific term. Similar labels may use different formation tests.
Cite the text or teacher tradition for each definition and threshold. A disagreement that begins in terminology should not be presented as mysterious intuition.
- Map terms to explicit tests.
- Locate the source of each rule.
Run methods separately and locate divergence
Execute each method in its own declared order and retain its evidence ledger. Identify the earliest step where the candidate, threshold, or priority changes.
Report parallel outputs before any synthesis. If OpenFate applies an integration policy, label it as editorial policy rather than attributing it to all traditions.
- Preserve separate method outputs.
- Label synthesis as policy.
Treat disagreement as uncertainty, not permission
Conflicting readings do not justify choosing the answer a client prefers or escalating certainty. They show that the interpretation depends on assumptions.
Do not use school consensus or disagreement to decide health, legal, financial, employment, safety, or relationship outcomes. Direct evidence remains primary.
- No cherry-picking by desired result.
- No high-risk verdict from method agreement.
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的完整順序，用於與其他方法比較首個分岔點A major reference for month-command, structure, and contextual Bazi interpretation.
- 《滴天髓》 (Dripping Heavenly Marrow)《滴天髓》及不同註本的氣勢、體用、旺衰與制化提供另一比較軸，也呈現相同術語在註家間的解釋差異A core later text on Bazi balance, seasonal strength, and relational reading.
- OpenFate Editorial Methodology流派分歧頁固定相同排盤與問題，分開執行方法並保留假設、首個分岔點和未決結果，禁止依偏好挑選答案OpenFate separates deterministic chart calculation, traditional interpretation, and modern editorial explanation.