Five-Element Strength Scoring in Bazi (五行力量評分)
Learn how Bazi strength scores can summarize season, roots, exposure, support, drain, and interactions without pretending that one universal percentage exists.
Overview
Five-Element Strength Scoring (五行力量評分) is a modern computational aid that converts declared Bazi evidence into comparable values. Useful scores preserve source-level provenance, separate season, roots, exposure, support, drain, control, and interactions, normalize only after deduplication, and publish their version. A score is a model output, not a classical constant or scientific measurement of a person.
At a glance
- Inputs
- Season, roots, stems, hidden qi, and interactions
- Architecture
- Separate evidence channels before aggregation
- Requirement
- Weights, caps, and transformations are versioned
- Validation
- Golden charts and boundary cases
- Output
- Relative model values with explanation
- Limit
- No universal classical percentage scale
Build the score from auditable evidence
Start from one normalized chart and attach every contribution to a stem, branch, hidden stem, season rule, or valid interaction. This prevents an explanation from inventing evidence after the score is known.
Separate support, drain, control, climate, and structural roles. One symbol may appear in several views but should not be counted repeatedly without an explicit reason.
- Keep source-level provenance.
- Deduplicate overlapping labels.
Declare weights and nonlinear rules
Month Command, root quality, visible stems, hidden qi, combinations, and clashes rarely deserve equal weight. Caps and interaction rules should be documented alongside the constants.
Normalize only after raw contributions are available. A percentage without its denominator and version is not reproducible.
- Publish weight categories.
- Expose raw and normalized values.
Test the model at the difficult boundaries
Use golden charts for term transitions, rootless stems, contested transformations, extreme patterns, and charts where season and momentum disagree.
Regression tests should verify both classification and evidence trace. Editorial examples can then explain why a score moved.
- Test counterexamples, not only easy charts.
- Lock behavior by methodology version.
Keep numerical precision proportional
A difference of a few model points may reflect convention, uncertain time, or weight choice rather than a meaningful metaphysical distinction.
Scores must not be marketed as scientific health, wealth, compatibility, or success probabilities.
- Show uncertainty and version.
- No scientific-probability claim.
Sources and editorial basis
- 《滴天髓》 (Dripping Heavenly Marrow)《滴天髓》以旺衰、源流、清濁與順逆綜合判勢，顯示力量不是平面字數而是有條件的關係網A core later text on Bazi balance, seasonal strength, and relational reading.
- 《子平真詮》 (True Explanations of Ziping)《子平真詮》月令、根透、成敗與救應的分層論法可作現代量化模型的證據分類，但未提供一套普世百分比A major reference for month-command, structure, and contextual Bazi interpretation.
- OpenFate Editorial Methodology五行力量評分頁要求來源級追蹤、去重、版本與反例測試，明示分數是模型輸出而非人格或科學測量OpenFate separates deterministic chart calculation, traditional interpretation, and modern editorial explanation.