A method can succeed at one part of the problem and fail at another, so convergence, precision and personalization are evaluated and reported on their own terms.
When several distinct timing techniques agree, are reported turning points ranked more highly? This tests whether overlapping signals carry more predictive information than any one technique alone.
Techniques examinedWhen a technique flags a turning point, how closely does its predicted period match the reported date? A broad indication and a precise forecast are not treated as the same result.
ResolutionDoes the real birth chart perform better than plausible incorrect charts? This tests whether correct birth data adds information beyond general age patterns or common cycles.
The comparisonsAnswer from your life as you remember it, not from what your chart or a previous reading says should be true.
List at least five events that substantially changed the direction of your life.
Give the year for each event, adding the month and day only when you remember them confidently.
Choose the single event that created the clearest before and after, and optionally add comparatively quiet years.
The analysis becomes more precise as the sample grows. Every phase keeps the misses.
A first look at the signal once 400 charts are in. Early results, wide uncertainty, published openly.
The analysis runs again at 2,500 charts, with tighter estimates and checks on what survived Phase 1.
The complete analysis at 5,000 charts, including what worked, what failed and what remains uncertain.
Blind first. The chart is calculated and its convergence years are recorded before anyone reads the participant’s answers.
Misses published. The findings include where these techniques fail. That is part of the reason for running the study.
Read the full methodology →You will sign in by email, enter your birth details once, and use the same profile for any other study you choose.
