Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

In 2023, I spent basically the whole year tracking my SLRs and Demi-SLRs, and scoring them. Something I wished I could’ve done then was keep more complete notes about each day during the periods, so that I could go back and retroactively analyze charts that I was not tracking at the time—KLRs, Enneads and 10-Day Solars, and so on.

This year, I did exactly that. I made terse entries for each day during an approximately 6-month period, and noted when various charts set up, although not what their details were. After this period was over, I went back, calculated, analyzed, and scored each of these charts for the periods that they covered. During these 6 months, I casually tracked one type of chart at a time, and not the others - so an SLR and Demi-SLR, or a series of 10-Day Solars, but not both. As such, I saw the vast majority of these charts for the first time when doing this analysis after the fact.

In total, I analyzed 85 charts at least once—by that, I mean some charts got relocated versions analyzed (but not officially added to the scores), and the full version of each chart got scored separately for the first half of the period, and for the second half of the period (once the Demi for it set up).

There are not a large number of charts analyzed per chart type - for example, during this period, I analyzed 6 KLRs and 5 Demi-KLRS, which is not enough to make a statistical claim about those charts per se. However, I analyzed at least 6 of basically everything, so I feel that we can still compare them to each other, especially since there was a huge degree of overlap between the time periods that each chart was active.

Another reason why I still feel that this was useful despite the low number of charts is that the time period itself is pretty long, which has implications about the usefulness of most of these charts. For example, if I told you that I tracked one type of chart for 6 months, and applied it to the events of my life, and that during that period, not a single chart was better than “meh,” would you have any particular interest in using that type of chart for yourself?

I know I wouldn’t. For this purpose, I am not very concerned that there were not a large body of charts per type to run detailed statistical analysis on; if 6 months of living doesn’t result in more than one or two usable charts, I’m over it.

This project was rather difficult. For any given day, something like 6-10 different charts could apply. When you have a period that has ups and downs and small events, it becomes difficult to judge between various descriptions of it.
The more charts I saw, the less I felt like I understood, which is not a surprising result; sidereal astrology, at least as practiced by our group, leans very heavily on the “less is more” approach.

In that spirit of refinement, let's see what it all looks like here at the end of that analysis.

As part of this examination, I decided to include some nonsensical charts, so that I could see
1. What they looked and felt like during analysis compared to real techniques, and
2. What their final scores were.

Obviously, this is not completely bias-free, as I was aware that they were fake charts - but it’s a step in that direction. I did ultimately find it a very useful endeavor. I think my experience there served as a stable rock-bottom to compare all of the other techniques against.

There were 2 categories of those charts, which I called my control groups. The first was a “5th harmonic” lunar return, skipping the conjunction (which is just a regular SLR) - so there were 4 of these 72° multiples per lunar month. I analyzed 16 of these.

The second was conceptually the same as a regular “Lunar Return” and its Demi, except:
1. They were calculated for times when transiting Moon conjoined or opposed my natal Mars instead of natal Moon, and
2. I located them in the middle of Africa (which is not where I live or have ever been to).

I analyzed 11 of these. I did this just in case the 72° lunar returns for my actual location seemed to have some crumbs of legitimacy.
Basically: one category that is probably nonsense, and another that is absolutely, unequivocally nonsense.

Let’s take a look at these scores first to establish a baseline.


Control Group #1: 5th harmonic lunar returns (skipping the conjunction)

+3:
+2: +
+1: ++++
+0: ++++
-1: ++
-2: +++++
-3:

Average: -0.375

Of course, there is a bias in my analyses here: I was expecting these to suck. However, they did, in fact, suck. The loudest factors in the charts were never the dominant features of the periods.

Control Group #2: “Lunar Returns” (to Mars) for Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo

+3:
+2: +++
+1: +++
+0: +
-1: +
-2: +++
-3: +

Average: -0.08

The final tally was quite similar for both. Basically: random.Their scores were negative but close to 0, which indicates they have no information one way or the other for us. Even in this, there were a handful of +2s, since random chance will lead to a couple of pretty impressive configurations here and there.

A few things stuck out at me as I analyzed these. For one, in each chart that had a blend of very strong and very weak factors, the strong ones were not any more expressive in reality than the weak ones. (Obviously, since the charts are BS.) It’s one thing to know that, but it’s another to actually witness it, since we don’t often knowingly analyze bad charts.

Secondly, and I only realized this once I returned to real charts, I just couldn’t feel anything in these fake charts. I couldn’t look at a handful of closely foreground planets and feel the clear themes of the period in them - whereas I actually could in the real charts (to varying degrees; more on this later). This wasn’t just reflected in their scores, it was also reflected in the experience of just looking at the data and pondering it.

Returning to real charts after this felt immediately different.

Let’s talk about real charts, starting with the Lunar Returns.

The other kind of “control group” in these analyses were the SLR and Demi-SLR - reliable, battle-tested, and proven. I used these to watch 2 other factors:
How do PVP aspects feel?
What sorts of events does Eris show up for, and what feeling do I get from it?

These were the only charts that I used PVP aspects in, and while I noted Eris’s presence in other charts, I didn’t take it seriously unless there was some theme that stuck out really, really clearly to me.

SLR (half month)
+3: ++
+2: +
+1: +++
+0:
-1:
-2:
-3:

Average: 1.83

SLR (full month)
+3:
+2: ++
+1: ++++
+0:
-1:
-2:
-3:

Average: 1.3

Demi-SLR
+3:
+2: ++
+1: ++++
+0:
-1:
-2:
-3:

Average: 1.3

Overall, these charts were really excellent. Two of the SLRs in the first half of the month were the only charts to get a +3 score. Not a single one of these was a wash.

I’m impressed, but not really surprised. Let’s look at the more experimental features.

How did PVP aspects do?
It was a mix, but definitely leaning positive. Five out of these 12 charts had PVP aspects that were not between natal planets that already had an aspect. (For those cases, I could not see anything added by the PVP aspect.)
I went back and scored only the PVP aspects for the charts; these scores for the 5 charts’ worth of aspects average to exactly 1.00 (going as high as +2 and as low as -1). Here are the patterns I noticed:

If the non-angular planet on Vertex/Antivertex is already represented in the other chart’s angular planets, it is often difficult to distinguish the PVP aspect. For example, natal Uranus involved in PVP squares when transiting Uranus is already foreground.
This goes double for situations where the “angular counterpart” of any planets on Vx/Av are really super angular, which happened a few times in my examples.
When the aspect is between 2 natal planets, it’s usually pretty difficult to see any manifestation, though this is not universally true.
PVP aspects wider than 1°30’ were usually not good. (There is one exception at 2°44’ between natal planets that I think is surprisingly useful, but not absolutely necessary.) Most of the examples had a clear difference between PVP aspects closer than this cutoff and ones that were wider.

I think most of these conclusions are pretty common sense except that the 1°30’ orb cutoff is a new concept. I will have that cutoff in mind going forward.

Additionally, for one relocated chart that had PVP aspects, the one good aspect was 1°55’; the other was wider and wasn’t amazing. That chart itself got a +2. I did not count the PVP aspects in these scores, but would’ve given them +1.

I will talk about Eris in a separate thread, since there is already so much going on in this one.

Quarti-SLRs (not including conjunction/opposition):
+3:
+2: +
+1: ++++++++
+0: ++
-1: +
-2:
-3:
Average: 0.75

It’s been a number of years since I’ve looked at one of these charts. What stuck out to me was how overwhelmingly they were “pretty okay,” which is reflected in the scores above. Almost none of them were “bad” per se, but none of them were very informative, either. I have an impression - one that is difficult to pin down - that these charts feel more descriptive of one or two comparatively major experiences during their periods, and less descriptive of the period as a whole. Typically, the days that were best described by these charts were not the days that they set up, ruling out the possibility that the NLRs were overperforming the Quarti-Lunars.
Overall, they were relatively weak, but consistently decent for me. Pretty much nothing else has the score distribution that these charts have.

Sidereal Anlunar Returns:

SAR (half month)
+3:
+2: +
+1: ++++
+0:
-1: +
-2:
-3:

Average: 0.83

SAR (2nd half of month)
+3:
+2:
+1: +++
+0: +
-1:
-2: +
-3:

Average: 0.2

Demi-SAR
+3:
+2:
+1: +++
+0: +
-1: ++
-2:
-3:

Average: 0.16

These stuck out to me as feeling basically like regular Lunar Returns… just much weaker. Often, charts would have the right blend of factors but weighted incorrectly, such as charts with Mars very angular and Venus much wider for periods where I was happy and social and not nearly as irritated, driven, productive, reactive, etc.
Sometimes, singular events were relatable to the most angular planets or tightest aspects, but when whole periods were considered, they were just weak charts. The SAR for the second half of the month, and the Demi-SAR, scored so poorly they veer dangerously close to “random chance” territory.

There were a couple of charts that brought SSR features to angles, notably the Saturn square to natal Mars that’s locked into my SSR. These were generally weak at best, and useless at worst. For example, in several charts with very prominent Saturn-to-Mars, my notes on the period talked about struggle and eventual success, and very few failures or defeats. One chart absolutely dominated by this aspect includes an injury, but the rest of that period does not really reflect this theme.

In general, very close aspects in these charts were hit-or-miss.

Maybe it's worth checking these out to see if such latent SSR features come to angles during the year, and only using that chart to narrow down the time period rather than interpreting that chart per se.

Kinetic Anlunars

Kinetic SAR (half month)
+3:
+2: ++
+1: ++
+0: +
-1: +
-2:
-3:

Average 0.83

Kinetic SAR (full month)
+3:
+2: +
+1: +
+0: ++
-1: +
-2:
-3:

Average: 0.4

Kinetic Demi-SAR
+3:
+2: +
+1: +++
+0:
-1:
-2: ++
-3:

Average: 0.16

My feeling on these is that they felt somewhat like 10-Day Solars in tone - the emphasis seems a little less on the Moon and more on Sun than either SLRs or SARs, interestingly. More than once, I gave one of these a low score, and then discovered that I had accidentally calculated it for my SSR location instead of my current location; upon correction, it was significantly improved. The full Kinetic SARs are significantly better than the Demis, which have striking and borderline unforgivable misses.

Otherwise, they were very similar to the regular Anlunars, even getting nearly the same scores. Like those charts, several of these had SSR factors brought strongly to angles and/or appearing as mundane aspects, and these were completely hit-or-miss. The tone of these feels different than the Anlunars in a way that is difficult to articulate, but their relative strength (and weaknesses) is about the same.

Kinetic Lunar Returns

KLR (half month)
+3:
+2: ++
+1: +++
+0: +
-1:
-2:
-3:

Average: 1.16

KLR (2nd half of month)
+3:
+2: +
+1: +
+0: ++
-1:
-2: +
-3:

Average: 0.2

Demi-KLR
+3:
+2: +
+1:
+0: ++
-1: +
-2: +
-3:

Average: -0.2

The difference in quality between the regular KLR and Demi-KLR was very pronounced. I don’t know why this is, and it’s possible that this is a bad run of charts. But, again, if I only get 1 good chart out of 6 months’ worth of charts, that is pretty damning to my interest in using it.
Worth noting, the only +2 that the Demi-KLR got was for a month in which the KLR got a +2 for both the first and second half. I don’t think progressed Moon’s aspects are particularly responsible.

Both a KLR and Demi-KLR seemed to relocate well.

Lunisolars

Lunisolar (half month)
+3:
+2: +
+1: +++
+0: +
-1: +
-2:
-3:

Average: 0.66

Lunisolar (2nd half of month)
+3:
+2: +
+1: +
+0: +
-1: ++
-2:
-3:

Average: 0.2

Demi-Lunisolar
+3:
+2:
+1: +
+0: ++
-1: +
-2: +
-3:

Average: -0.4

The main charts are pretty decent for the first half of the period; in the second half, they seem much weaker, but what’s interesting is that the Demis performed so poorly.

These charts did not appear to relocate well.

On the whole, I think they are worth studying more closely, but they did not have the kind of breakout success I was hoping for.

On a side note, I took a look at my active Solilunar and Demi-Solilunar; both were rather good (+2 and +1/+2 respectively). They are the only 2 charts I have to go off of so far, so I’m going to continue to watch these and see how they perform.

Enneads

Note that the SSR chart was not counted. I didn’t want any special cases.

Novienic Solar Return (as a 10-day only)
+3:
+2: ++
+1:
+0:
-1: ++
-2:
-3:

Average: 0.5

Novienic Solar Return (as 40-day chart)
+3:
+2: +
+1:
+0: +
-1: +
-2:
-3:

Average: 0.33

10-Day Solar (including the ones that are also NSRs)
+3:
+2: +++++
+1: ++++
+0:
-1: +++
-2: +++
-3:

Average: 0.33

I was really, really disappointed that these performed so poorly, especially the 10-Days. There were significantly more of them than any other chart, but even with more of them to even out any weird runs of bad charts, on the whole, they’re just a wash. 20% of the 10-Days were just completely terrible, and their total distribution resembles that of my fake charts. I think this analysis is the end of my interest in them, unfortunately.

The very important charts
1.83 - SLR (1st half)
1.30 - SLR (2nd half) and Demi-SLR

Obviously, the SLR and Demi-SLR are time-tested and well-proven, and for good reason: they scored significantly above everything else. Even while analyzing them, the difference between these and the others was like night and day.

Trustworthy
1.16 - KLR (1st half)

I wish the KLR wasn’t so annoying to calculate (in terms of working out all the aspects); it’s the only other chart to score above 1.0 out of the bunch. What is really interesting to me is that the Demi-KLR scored absolutely abysmally.

Weak but mostly trustworthy
0.83 - SAR (1st half) and Kinetic SAR (1st half)
0.75 - Quarti-SLR
0.66 - Lunisolar (1st half)

As I was going through the charts and scoring them, I really felt like the Kinetic SAR was going to outperform the regular SAR. In the end, they had the exact same average scores.

The Quarti-SLRs were interesting, and had a very different feeling about them than either the SLRs or the Demi-SLRs. They were not strongly descriptive of the periods during which they were active, but they were almost universally more descriptive than not.

Too weak to be trustworthy
0.50 - NSR as 10-Day Solar only (very small sample size)
0.40 - Kinetic SAR (2nd half)
0.33 - 10-Day Solar and NSR (full month) (very small sample size)
0.20 - Lunisolar (2nd half), KLR (2nd half), SAR (2nd half)
0.16 - Demi-SAR and Kinetic Demi-SAR

I’m really disappointed to see all of the NSR variants all the way down here, especially the 10-Day.
Also interesting is that every single Demi except the Demi-SLR is in this category (or lower).
The reason I consider these too weak to be trustworthy is that, out of the best of them (which is a small sample size as it is), you have a 50/50 shot of having a chart that is either weak but more accurate than inaccurate, or a wash. For the others, the odds are even lower of getting a chart that ends up giving you actual usable information. I am not going to calculate all of these charts knowing there’s a 20% chance the chart will be better than “it’s a wash.”

Unusable
-0.08 - Control Group #2 (“Lunar” return to Mars, in Africa)
-0.20 - Demi-KLR
-0.38 - Control Group #1 (5th harmonic Lunars)
-0.40 - Demi-Lunisolar

The control groups obviously end up down here. For the other two, I really don’t have any theories about why they scored the way that they did—that’s just the way it turned out.

Final conclusions

First of all, the original way that I was tracking these charts - using Google Sheets to put clusters of planets in different columns by orb - totally sucked to work with later, and I’m never doing that again. I kept that list during the 6-month period itself (for the one chart type I was currently watching), but I never looked at them once I began analysis.

The SLR and Demi-SLR scored as well as expected, and retain their status as undisputed champions. While the KLR was in 3rd place, which was also expected, I was surprised by how much worse the Demis were than the full KLRs. For that matter, I was really surprised that all of the non-SLR Demis were so weak. I was also surprised to see that the 10-Day Solars were so unreliable.

I believe I have found out some tendencies for PVP aspects in at least SLRs.

I also got a clearer grasp on how Eris works in these charts (though that’s in a separate thread).

After spending so much time calculating triwheels and quadriwheels the hard way, I am never going to complain about biwheels again!

I plan to watch KLRs some more, but only after they’re in Time Matters; I really hated calculating all of the aspects by hand. I also plan to pay attention to Lunisolars, which are easy enough to calculate (as biwheels) that I can keep up with them the hard way.

As a final note, I did notice something interesting with these charts as a group. The first quarter of my year was rather difficult for me, and almost every single chart was centered around Saturn or Neptune. It felt like every other chart had my natal Moon-Saturn-Neptune angular. That doubled the scoring difficulty for me, since many charts had similar themes, but with different weighting. However, that’s a message in and of itself about what kind of time period I was in, and that message was correct.

Wow, what a great project! Thank you so much for sharing your results. I found it all very interesting and informative. I am still learning about many of the charts you tracked and have never really looked into them so your feedback about your experience is important. I am definitely of the "less is more" when it comes to looking into charts.
From the conversations I've had with our libraries head cataloger who used Google Sheets to compile the 60,000 books we are weeding......never again. It just cant handle the data and formulas and manipulation like Excell....though the sheets have a pretty estethic that is alluring to those just reading it, it is cumbersome and error prone for actual work.

Wow. What a great piece of work. Thanks for doing this and reporting on it. Your method was good (difficult while wading through these tedious, subjective details) and the control charts were a wonderful conclusion (every astrologer should have the chance to see how their mind evaluates erroneous, random data).

I suggest everybody take the time to wade through this and see just what Mike is saying as he goes. I suspect people will return to this in the future as one baseline of what we need to examine and how we need to examine it.

It is a simplification to say that you mostly confirmed the most important parts of what I already think about these charts However, it's true that you did. You also found some new things and gave voice to some nuances. Here are some random notes I jotted while going through:

• PVP orbs: You seemed to be finding them roughly where I see octile orbs, which is interesting by itself (and, if true and substantiated, helps reduce the raw number of these that can exist in a given chart). I'll actively keep this in mind as I go into the new year of concentrating on monitoring PVP aspects in my biweekly lunars. - If nothing else, this confirms that TM will need independent orb selection for PVP aspects, rather than just using whatever was already set for ecliptical and mundoscope aspects.
• Quarti-SLRs. I see you struggling like so many of us have over the years . I admit I'm surprised they were even this good. Two questions left in my mind are: (1) At any point were they necessary? (2) Do they help narrow the time window to a particular week? - Your analysis so far probably wouldn't answer this because it mostly boils down to: When events happened in the non-quarti weeks, how did the subsequent quartis behave? (Just as well? Randomly?)
• Anlunars. Yeah. What can I say. The decades-long quandary about Anlunars. Wtf? That bringing SSR configurations to the angles did NOT pay off is an important observation which, if replicated, seems to pretty much undercut any real value of the Anlunars. (if they aren't going to give wonderful portrayals of their time period, the least they can do is refine SSR expression, right?) That "what do I do with this?" feeling I am reading in your report - centered on "well, sure, the planets are right, but there's no sense of priority or a clear message" - is a familiar feeling with them. One or two or three stunning, OMG Anlunars a year doesn't warrant the noise level of watching them routinely IMO.
• Pathetic demi-returns: This was really interesting to see, especially how it was true of every technique examined across the board except the Demi-SLR. My brain immediately starts creating theories for the Why on this (I think I'll set theorizing on it aside for a while). I am indeed surprised that the Demi-KLR was included in this, but I'll keep this possibility in mind assessing things going forward.
• Enneads and 10-Day Solars: I'm not surprised that the Enneads did poorly and, like, you, pretty surprised that the 10-Days didn't show as well. While their average is close to 0, the exact pattern of scores is interesting. It matches my current practice with them in the sense that I expect good showings from them and don't find I really need to watch them (that they're worth the effort) most of the time. It differs from my current practice in that I would have really expected them to bias more toward useful. I'll have to watch this more attentively.

As I'm sure you think also, this is just one report - one well-done report - of the sort that appears in research journals in other fields. It's an intelligent, useful analysis and begs for replication and more digging. If, however, I were to take it (prematurely) as definitive, I'd boil it down to what I'd have said in advance:

• SLR and Demi-SLR are the gold standard. They are the only clearly necessary charts studied.
• If I were to add one more chart routinely, it would be the KLR (but I'd have included the Demio-KLR on equal footing).
• There are a lot of other charts of uncertain value and possible contribution in the aggregate. We have to struggle with how to identify the useful, how to use them, and how not to get lost in them.
• But then there is the discrepancy on 10-Days (which would have been my "and if I were to add even one more after the KLR" answer).

Thanks!

Jim Eshelman wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2024 8:13 am It is a simplification to say that you mostly confirmed the most important parts of what I already think about these charts However, it's true that you did.

I completely agree. At the outset, in my notes to myself (I started drafting this long post way back at the beginning of the year), I wrote that I didn't necessarily expect to find anything that the giants who came before me didn't find. But, 1. maybe I would, and 2. it would at least answer for me how much I care about each chart in question.

With that said, I find it to be distinctly relieving that I mostly replicated existing results. If I had found, I dunno, that Quarti-Lunars outperformed SLRs, and that Demis soundly beat their full charts, I would've been really disoriented and upset!

PVP orbs: You seemed to be finding them roughly where I see octile orbs, which is interesting by itself (and, if true and substantiated, helps reduce the raw number of these that can exist in a given chart). I'll actively keep this in mind as I go into the new year of concentrating on monitoring PVP aspects in my biweekly lunars. - If nothing else, this confirms that TM will need independent orb selection for PVP aspects, rather than just using whatever was already set for ecliptical and mundoscope aspects.

Ah, yes, that's a good point. I'll make sure that there are settings for this when PVP aspects are enabled.
I didn't make the connection to octile orbs, but, yeah, they do seem to fall in that same ballpark.

Quarti-SLRs. I see you struggling like so many of us have over the years . I admit I'm surprised they were even this good. Two questions left in my mind are: (1) At any point were they necessary? (2) Do they help narrow the time window to a particular week? - Your analysis so far probably wouldn't answer this because it mostly boils down to: When events happened in the non-quarti weeks, how did the subsequent quartis behave? (Just as well? Randomly?)

1. They were never necessary. That much is clear.
2. Let me look back through my original notes and see what the patterns are... I'll do that next...

Anlunars. Yeah. What can I say. [...] That "what do I do with this?" feeling I am reading in your report - centered on "well, sure, the planets are right, but there's no sense of priority or a clear message" - is a familiar feeling with them. One or two or three stunning, OMG Anlunars a year doesn't warrant the noise level of watching them routinely IMO.

Agreed. They really are extremely average. By the way, it is possible that I'm setting the bar too high with my "latent SSR features on angles didn't ever mean anything" conclusion... but, compared to such events as, say, transits, there was absolutely nothing with that degree of intensity.
For a great example, a close friend was under a mean Saturn transit to Mars, and he couldn't get any traction in his job search... until he heard back the day that the transit left 1 degree orb.
Nothing even remotely that obvious occurred with these Anlunars. In particular, when Venus/Jupiter/Uranus rotated to angles (and they're already angular in my SSR), there was no major developments on those fronts.

I still plan to take a wide vantage point on these (and their kinetics), particularly with my next SSR, and just see if they work at all specifically as timing devices (despite these findings that they don't seem to do that well). If they don't impress me with that very specific use case, I'm prepared to erase them from my brain.

Pathetic demi-returns: [...] I am indeed surprised that the Demi-KLR was included in this, but I'll keep this possibility in mind assessing things going forward.

Yeah, me too. I plan to give KLRs much more attention than anything else (that's experimental) once they're in Time Matters, so I'm willing to withhold judgment on them for now - especially since their 1st harmonic counterparts did so well.

Enneads and 10-Day Solars: I'm not surprised that the Enneads did poorly and, like, you, pretty surprised that the 10-Days didn't show as well. While their average is close to 0, the exact pattern of scores is interesting.

Yeah, right? Nothing else had that extreme gap in scoring. The charts were never mediocre, they were either great or awful - and there were lots of them.

As I'm sure you think also, this is just one report - one well-done report - of the sort that appears in research journals in other fields. It's an intelligent, useful analysis and begs for replication and more digging.

I agree, and hope others will be intrigued to run their own studies and see what they find.

Mike, a note about the LS charts (since this thread focuses on the short-term charts, I won't say anything about the SL ones explicitly), and in relation to the methodology:

>>> continual observation, with regular notes (daily, or each few days), for at least one year of time, and then retrospectively assessing all of that -- is the best way to establish the actual practical "feel" re how & whether these charts operate [meaning: learn about it from one's own experience]

>>> the method of analyzing and interpreting these requires a somewhat different approach from what people familiar with the SLRs, and especially via the writings on this forum, have been used to when it comes to the short-term charts; it wouldn't be fitting here to go into details, since I already elaborated on that at-length in the Soli-Lunar & Luni-Solar Period charts booklet (let me know if you don't have it!) -- the method is outlined there through examples, rather than in a fixed, of a formulaic-kind, manner (the related entries in chapters on life-events/periods of Lena of Bavaria, and of T.C. Lethbridge, might be of most use/interest to you, in this regard); I see this as more valuable (for a patient, studious reader!) than the formulaic-kind of approach;
unsuitable to delve into details here, as said, but what does need to be mentioned is:
--> approaching them adequately requires the consideration of the whole picture presented by the exact composition of the angularity (the tr-angular, the rx-angular, and their mutual inter-connectedness via aspects, or the MP-forming structures), instead of excusive kind of focus onto but one or a few factors/combinations-thereof (due to their orbs);
--> the manner of how one exactly perceives & and interprets the planetary factors themselves determines to a huge degree the conclusions one will be tending-to and be able to make (both in-the-going, as well as in-retrospect while analyzing, say, a set of data of one's own notes) about whether or not, and "to what degree of reliability" a given chart or a set of them "works".

-------------------------


I have in the meantime also looked at various other "strange" (less explored) short-term charts ( it made me smile seeing you mention the 5th harmonic ones that you looked at, for I did a similar observational-inquiry just recently ), and, with all that, and together with work done with the SL-LS ones --- including now over 2.5 years of continual, consistent observation of the LSs, with notes and with retrospective assessment --- what presents itself as an undeniable, experience-based, factuality is:
from all of these various charts that pertain to the monthly & bi-weekly level -- the more "common"/familiar ones that you mention above, as well as a number of different others -- if only one set of them is to be selected as the-most-useful tool, the LS ones do show to be that set.

Statistics, as by now you probably know , is not the methodological factor that I take for the fundamental (the last "chapter" -- titled "Notes on methodology" -- in the Astrological Texts book gives the basic elaboration on that) -- so, what am saying here does not include the statistically-formulated-data, as you've done above. --- How the statistical analysis itself is conducted fully depends on the set of basic premises that one works with, and which themselves have the interwoven-tapestry-of-assumptions/beliefs as their "basement-of-the-building" layer; within such a context, it is enough for only one "tiny"-seeming aspect of this tapestry to be entirely-off, for the whole structure emerging thereupon to be faulty -- and all of this can easily pass unnoticed, if one looks only at the structure itself, disregarding to take a proper deeper look at its actual foundation.

... In practice, it comes to: how usable is any of these various short-term chart-sets, as an informational "tool", such that of actual Value; and is there a set that: if that'd be the-only-one to use, the very-key, most important info/factors do get seen, and there are no the-very-key, highly-significant info/factors which thus get missed-to-be-seen?

The actuality of one's own experience and the therein-observation (the longer-term, the better) is the primary & the sole fully-Substantial reference, in the judging-sense, for this [- whether & to what extent this may be called "scientific" or not --- depends on: how does the human, both individual, as well as a group/collective (and thus over time -- be it longer or shorter), perceive the term "science" and in what way is this fundamentally defined];
and in this regard, the exact how-ness & what-ness of the Methodology employed is super-important... it may often seem as if it is about "results", but the word methodos refers to the-way, the manner-of-movement --- the very gist, the actual value of the journey isn't in a this-or-that destination, but in the actual dynamics-quality of its moving-path

Danica wrote: Mon Jul 29, 2024 4:22 am --> the manner of how one exactly perceives & and interprets the planetary factors themselves determines to a huge degree the conclusions one will be tending-to and be able to make (both in-the-going, as well as in-retrospect while analyzing, say, a set of data of one's own notes) about whether or not, and "to what degree of reliability" a given chart or a set of them "works".

... for example: if you have a firmly pre-decided set of words as info/interp reference for what "is" Mars, and get onto assessing whether some given chart does or does-not work, based on how much is what you assess from experience in-conformity to these --- Mars may very well be staring into your face, without you noticing it at all! [for, say -- Mars comes as a neat example here -- you assume that for Mars, it must be something punching-you in the face, or otherwise in some way specifically bombastic-hitting, for it to be considered as "Mars" ... etc., for other planetary ergies/factors, their clusterings and the mutual combinations thereof].
... for Statistics to be properly employed in methodological sense, this matter of: adequately, in just-the-right-manner, defining the reference-factors, so that although by that being a-definition it necessarily has a limitation-quality to it, it is not being formulated - and applied in work/observation - in such way that this disables the moving & expanding-vista of perception (which simply means: the actual Seeing, and therefrom Learning), but is applied in a way which exactly allows, enables, "makes the ground for", this.
[... the matter of anchoring, as a phenomenon, in wider sense --- anchoring in relation to a moving-observational-point ... and the *how* of the inherent-structuring of the known-&-unknown fundamental dynamics thereof ...]