Editorial Methodology
How We Build Public-Facing Metaphysics Content
Overview
OpenFate articles are produced from a layered workflow: chart-engine validation, source-based interpretation design, AI-assisted drafting, and final editorial review. The goal is not to present metaphysics as science, but to publish internally consistent, well-labeled, and responsibly framed traditional-analysis content.
Editorial Principles
- We anchor interpretations to chart structure first, then to narrative language.
- We separate traditional metaphysics framing from modern medical, legal, or financial advice.
- We keep recurring entities consistent across tools, articles, and multilingual pages.
- We prefer direct-answer sections, explicit headings, and scannable page structure for readers.
Review Workflow
- Engine layer: We verify chart calculations, time logic, and entity mapping against the current application logic.
- Knowledge layer: We structure article sections around stable metaphysics concepts, not just headline keywords.
- Editorial layer: We normalize headings, related links, and disclaimers before publication.
- Maintenance layer: We revisit language, examples, and navigation when site architecture changes.
How We Use AI
AI assists drafting, comparison, and multilingual adaptation, but it does not replace chart logic, labeling discipline, or editorial responsibility. We keep disclaimers visible and avoid presenting traditional metaphysics as a substitute for modern professional advice.
Questions or Corrections
If you find an entity inconsistency, content issue, or language-quality problem, contact us through the main support channels listed in our privacy and terms pages so we can review the relevant page.
Sources and editorial responsibility
OpenFate is responsible for this first-party documentation. AI assists drafting and code review. The records below identify software observations and documentation changes; they do not claim a named astrologer’s review, independent certification or endorsement by a source author.
- Calculation facts: Prefer engine documentation and reproducible numeric receipts. State the input, coordinate convention, reference implementation and tolerance. A package version is not proof of the underlying C-library version.
- Traditional methods: Use attributed works and the Wiki’s topic-specific sources. Name the tradition when rules differ; a bibliography alone does not verify every sentence.
- Product conventions: Label our house defaults, orb ranges, supported dates and missing-time behavior as product choices. Do not present them as universal astrological agreement.
- Interpretations: Separate the computed chart from possible meanings. AI prose and example readings are interpretive material; no biography, event or probability follows from a longitude alone.
How We Treat Metaphysical Content
OpenFate publishes Bazi, Ziwei Doushu, Western astrology, compatibility, Huangli, and personality content as interpretive cultural material. The editorial workflow separates chart calculation, AI-assisted explanation, human review, source structure, and user-facing disclaimers so each article can be useful without pretending to replace professional advice.
- Calculation pages should expose enough context for users to understand what the tool is producing.
- Insight pages should explain assumptions, limits, and next steps instead of only giving conclusions.
- Sensitive topics such as money, health, relationships, and legal decisions require clear boundaries.
Calculation and AI Validation
Read the system-by-system disclosure of what OpenFate calculates, what AI explains, how regressions are checked, how saved reports are preserved, and what the process cannot prove.
Western Astrology: Methods, Evidence and Editorial Standards →