On this page
THE SHORT ANSWER
Check one important sentence at a time. Identify whether it reports a calculation, a tradition or a personal inference, then inspect the evidence for that exact claim. Finding a title, reading an excerpt and validating a prediction are different achievements. A long reference list cannot substitute for that distinction.
- Match the source to the claim: implementation for calculations, texts for traditions and real information for personal conclusions.
- Keep track of what was actually read. A summary is not a full-work review.
- Separate supported, unsupported and unresolved statements before saving a report.
This result counts zero visible Water characters.
A school associates this symbol with a particular theme.
Therefore, you should change industries.
A page was found, so the conclusion is verified.
These cards select four types of example: a calculation, a traditional interpretation, a personal inference and an unread citation. The statements are claims to examine, not established conclusions. The complete table below adds precise percentages and explains the checks and limits for all five types.
Identify what kind of claim you are reading
“Three different cards were drawn” is a result you can check. “This card is often associated with waiting” describes an interpretive tradition. “You may be waiting for someone’s permission” is an inference about your situation. Appearing in one report does not give these claims the same status.
For a birth chart, check the inputs and conventions behind the stems, branches and palaces first. Then examine where statements about personality, relationships or future events come from. A reproducible calculation does not validate every interpretation attached to it.
A citation should support the particular claim
Open the source and check whether its relevant section addresses the statement. Software documentation can explain an algorithm. A traditional text can document a symbolic association. Neither establishes a prediction about your future simply by being cited.
Reading a search summary, reading an excerpt and reading a whole book are different things. Ask the Agent to match conclusions to their supporting passages and identify any source it could not open or verify.
What kind of claim are you checking?
| Type | Example | Check and limit |
|---|---|---|
| Calculation | This result counts zero visible Water characters. | Compare the chart and counting method. This does not measure hidden stems or strength. |
| Tradition | A school associates this symbol with a particular theme. | Check the work and passage. One school is not every tradition. |
| Personal inference | Therefore, you should change industries. | Examine your goals and circumstances. The preceding sources do not establish this advice. |
| Unread citation | A page was found, so the conclusion is verified. | Check that relevant text was actually retrieved. A title or failed read is insufficient. |
| Precise percentage | Your job change has an 87% chance of success. | Ask for the event definition, data and validation. Precision alone is not measurement. |
On a small screen, scroll the table sideways.
Know the scope of Wenbu research
Research mode searches Wenbu’s guides, card and hexagram notes, and a curated reference catalogue. It can attempt to read public excerpts from external pages in that catalogue. It does not browse arbitrary URLs or search the entire web.
Access restrictions, page formats and reading limits can leave gaps. Finding a title is not the same as reading the text. A useful report should say what remains unchecked. If your question is outside the catalogue, ask what can currently be established and what additional source would be needed.
Check one claim that matters to you
Suppose a report says solar-time correction changes all four BaZi pillars. Ask: “For Wenbu’s current implementation, explain separately how the year, month, day and hour are determined. Show the calculation basis and do not generalize to every school.” This gives the reply a specific rule to verify.
Before saving a report, choose one important conclusion and check its basis. If the support is missing, mark it as unresolved. A confident sentence is not a reason to close the question.
- “Is this a calculated result, a traditional interpretation or an inference from my context?”
- “Which source directly supports this point? Separate anything the source does not establish.”
- “How would the conclusion change if this detail about my situation were wrong?”
Worked example: “No Water means you must change industries”
Treat this fictional sentence as a claim to review, not advice about your own chart.
Split it into three claims: the count is zero; zero means Water is favorable; a favorable element dictates a career change. Each needs separate support.
Check the chart and method. Wenbu counts visible stems and branches without weighting hidden stems, season or strength. A correct count does not establish the second claim.
Ask for a source and a read passage for each claim. Label a Wenbu guide as editorial material. If an external page could not be read, retain that gap.
Keep only the supported statement: “Under these inputs and counting rules, the visible Water count is zero. This is not a favorable-element assessment or a career recommendation.”
Save the correction and why it was needed. A changed input or counting method requires a fresh check, rather than reuse of the old count.
Removing an unsupported inference is a useful research result, even when it produces no definitive career answer.
Key terms
- Direct support
- Evidence addressing the claim itself under matching conditions.
- Reading scope
- The text actually available: a summary, excerpt or fuller work.
- Unresolved
- Not established by the available evidence; neither automatically false nor true.
Common questions
Is a real link enough?
No. Its relevant passage must support the particular statement and its conditions, rather than merely discuss a related topic.
Do several agreeing sources validate a claim?
Check whether they repeat one another. Repetition can document a tradition’s spread without validating a personal prediction.
What does a Wenbu source label guarantee?
It helps identify material and reading status, not perfect output. Research remains limited to the collection. NIST also identifies confident false output as a generative-AI risk.
Sources and their scope
Directly supports the visible-character counting method and excluded factors. The career sentence is a fictional audit example.
Supports the internal collection, external allowlist and public-excerpt reading limits.
Supports product requirements for read sources, failure disclosure and labeled inference; requirements do not guarantee error-free output.
Section 2.2 describes confident false output; MS-2.5-003 calls for checking sources and citations. This is not an accuracy evaluation of Wenbu or divination.
Traditional interpretations are not established predictions. See the source notes for context.
Read this guide with your agent
Get the complete text, diagram descriptions and sources in an open format. These files contain public knowledge only.
Ready to put this into practice?
Open Wenbu Agent ↗