Compatibility Score Limitations
No scalar can certify love, safety, consent, marriage, or breakup; use a score only as a transparent navigation aid. Scope is explicit.
Overview
No defensible percentage can be derived; the eight contacts remain an auditable descriptive list. This is the worked result for Compatibility Score Limitations; it remains conditional and does not turn geometry or timing into a verdict. The comparison method is explicit: A reproducible score must publish included factors, aspect orbs, weights, missing-data handling, normalization, and the exact algorithm version.
At a glance
- Topic
- Compatibility Score Limitations
- Content family
- relationship comparison
- Case inputs
- eight contacts found; weights, denominator, missing-time policy, and validation set all unspecified
- Measured finding
- no defensible percentage can be derived; the eight contacts remain an auditable descriptive list
- OpenFate support
- two-chart compatibility + birth chart
- Use boundary
- conditional · source-audited · non-fated
Definition and exact scope
A compatibility score compresses selected chart features and weights into one number, discarding direction, context, and conflicting evidence.
Calculation or decision rule
A reproducible score must publish included factors, aspect orbs, weights, missing-data handling, normalization, and the exact algorithm version. Keep the Compatibility Score Limitations input record, reference frame, tolerance, and version so an independent recalculation can show the first step where it diverges.
Worked case and illustrative near miss
eight contacts found; weights, denominator, missing-time policy, and validation set all unspecified. no defensible percentage can be derived; the eight contacts remain an auditable descriptive list.
Illustrative near miss; does not qualify: Displaying 82% because eight favorable labels outweighed two difficult labels without a published model.
School, model, and context variants
No scalar can certify love, safety, consent, marriage, or breakup; use a score only as a transparent navigation aid.
Product, safety, and verification boundary
OpenFate connects Compatibility Score Limitations only to the two-chart compatibility flow and natal evidence; it does not score destiny or guarantee a relationship result. Compatibility Score Limitations preserves contrary observations and uncertainty, and it cannot replace consent, professional help, location research, or a person’s account.
Sources and editorial basis
- NCGR-PAA Level III CurriculumNCGR-PAA Level III Curriculum, “Synastry” and “Solar Return”, pp. 2–3; “Classical Astrology: Timing”, p. 3; forecast bibliography, pp. 5–6The NCGR-PAA advanced curriculum lists the inputs, calculation distinctions, and synthesis steps taught for synastry, composite and Davison charts, solar and lunar returns, transits, progressions, solar arcs, and profections. It documents professional curriculum scope, not empirical validation.
- Astrodienst Comparative Astrology and Synastry ReferenceAstrowiki “Comparative Astrology”, section listing Synastry, Midpoint Composite, and Davison methods; “Synastry”, section “Methods”Astrodienst reference material distinguishing synastry overlays, midpoint composite charts, and Davison relationship charts. It is used for method ownership and calculation distinctions, not to certify attraction or compatibility.
- Organization for Professional Astrology: Code of EthicsOPA Code of Ethics §1(c) Accurate Data, §1(j) Fatalistic Statements and client autonomy, §1(k) Charts of Others, and §2(f) Scope of Practice and referralAn independent practitioner code covering accurate data, confidentiality, client welfare, informed practice, competence, and referral boundaries.
Read the guide alongside an OpenFate result
Start with the concepts on this page, then check how the related product actually uses them. The links below keep its method, verification record, report example and purchase or use instructions together.
Three-system compatibility
This product compares Bazi, Ziwei and Western astrology for two people. The score limitations discussed here are a starting point: inspect each system’s evidence, then distinguish repeated themes, mixed signals, disagreement and insufficient evidence instead of averaging them.
Read each system separately before comparing themes. Similar wording can arise from related editorial choices, and disagreement can reflect different questions or rules. Three systems are not three independent votes, and their scores should not become a probability.
A traditional source explains where a rule comes from. A calculation check tests the stated case. A generated report shows the writing for its recorded input, language and date. None of these alone proves future outcomes, independent expert endorsement or reader satisfaction. Check the sample page for its origin, completeness and any unavailable parts.
Compare all product guides