What Zodiux Does Not Claim

Zodiux publishes three kinds of sentence and treats them differently. Some are measurements: planetary positions computed from an open-source ephemeris, checkable by anyone holding a different one. Some are tradition: the meanings Western astrology has attached to those positions for about two thousand years, restated plainly and asserted as nothing more than that. And some are sentences this site will not print at any search volume — about your health, your money, the law, or what another person feels. This page names all three, publishes the exclusion list in full, and then says which of those exclusions an automated check actually catches before a release goes out, and which four are held by nothing but judgement.

Three kinds of sentence, and how far each can be checked

The failure this page exists to prevent is a precise number and a symbolic claim printed in the same typeface, at the same confidence, one line apart. How to use astrology tools responsibly argues that case at length and gives you tests to run on us. This page does the narrower job: label the categories, and state what Zodiux will and will not put in each.

The test for which category a sentence belongs to is not how confident it sounds. It is what would have to happen for it to be shown wrong. A measurement has an answer to that. A traditional meaning does not — and the honest move is to say so in the same paragraph rather than in a footer.

Every row marked measured can be verified with software that has never heard of this site. No row marked traditional can, and none is written as though it could.

What Zodiux asserts about its own numbers

The astronomy is the half of this site that can be proved wrong, so the claims made for it are deliberately enumerated and deliberately narrow. Data sources names every dataset and the calculation pipeline walks the steps in order. What follows is not the mechanism — it is the claim attached to each mechanism, and the exact point at which that claim stops.

Five assertions, and where each one ends

• Accurate to well under a degree is a statement about longitude, and only about longitude. It is not a statement about your birth time, which is the one input nobody can check and where nearly all real chart error actually lives.
• The same ephemeris runs in your browser and in the build, and we made that checkable rather than asking you to take it. Astronomy Engine is vendored twice — an ES module for the static build, a browser bundle for the page — so a sign page and the calculator cannot disagree. What we deliberately do not claim is a version: the library ships no version string, so rather than quote a number nobody can verify, the methodology hub publishes a SHA-256 fingerprint of both files. Hash them yourself and compare.
• Tropical is a convention we picked, not a result we found. Twelve equal 30° signs measured from the March equinox point. We do not claim the sidereal zodiac used in Vedic astrology is wrong; it measures from a different origin, currently around 24° away, so a Vedic chart is meant to disagree with this one. The same reasoning is why the free chart draws no house cusps at all — the pipeline page lists everything else it refuses to compute for that reason.
• Where we simplify, the simplification is named in the running text, not in small print. The one worth knowing about is the obliquity of the ecliptic, held at a fixed 23.4367° in the rising-sign step instead of being recomputed for your birth date; the pipeline page prices it against every other source of error in that calculation, and it is the smallest one there. An unnamed simplification is the kind that grows.
• None of the above licenses the sentence that follows it. Precision belongs to the position. It does not travel to the meaning, and no quantity of decimal places would carry it there.

The exclusions

Some categories are permanently out of scope, whatever a visitor searches for and whatever would sell. They are not soft preferences, and they apply identically to the free pages, the paid report and anything we publish later.

What Zodiux will not publish

• No medical or psychological guidance. Not a diagnosis, not an explanation of a symptom, not a plan for managing one. If something in your life needs a professional, a birth chart is not one.
• No legal or financial guidance. Nothing about money, contracts or risk that could be read as a recommendation to act, and no sentence that tells you to act on one.
• No predictions about death, illness or pregnancy. These are the three subjects where astrology does the most damage and where the search demand is highest. The demand is not an argument.
• No claims about another person's feelings. A chart cannot tell you whether someone loves you, is lying to you, or is coming back. We will not write it, in any phrasing.
• No compatibility verdict framed as a decision. A pair score compares two symbolic categories. It holds no information about two actual people and has no business in that conversation.
• No 'and therefore you should' about your life. The boundary here is narrower than we used to state it, and the narrower version is the true one. Placement readings do carry suggestions — the paid report prints a labelled Do: line under each of the ten placements, and some chart and sign-page readings close on an imperative. What none of them do is instruct in the domains this list protects: nothing tells you to take or stop a treatment, leave or stay in a relationship, take or refuse a job, or move money. A suggestion about how to hold your own attention is not the same act as advice about your health, and only the second is forbidden here.
• No fear, and nothing sold against it. No curses, no blocked energy, no remedy priced to relieve a worry the page manufactured. A page that reads as though it is trying to frighten you into a purchase is a defect, not a strategy.

Which exclusions a script can catch, and which are only a promise

A rule that lives only in a style guide gets forgotten, so part of that list is executable. The publication gate is a script that runs after the build and before deploy, as one of five checks. It walks every URL in the generated sitemap, strips each page back to the visible text inside its main element, and tests that text against eight phrase patterns. A match exits 1. That exit code is a person's stop signal rather than an automated block — no CI job or deploy hook consumes it today, so the gate is only as binding as the habit of running it before shipping. Saying it "blocks the deploy" would describe an intention, not a mechanism.

The patterns are narrow on purpose. They match the imperative and predictive forms rather than the mention of a subject, so a page can still explain why astrology says nothing useful about your health without tripping the check that stops it advising you about yours. The price of that narrowness is real, and this is the honest version of it: a phrase scan reads phrasing. It cannot see tone, or implication, or a sentence that does the forbidden thing without using a forbidden word.

Those descriptions are paraphrases, and deliberately so. An earlier draft of this page quoted the eight patterns exactly, and the gate failed the page — the scan cannot tell a page publishing a rule from a page breaking it. That is the narrowness described above, demonstrated on this page rather than asserted about it, and it is why the four rows below the line need a person.

So three of the seven are partly machine-checked and four are held by a person and nothing else. Publishing that split is more useful than publishing only the reassuring half: it tells you exactly where to be sceptical of us, and it tells you the corrections address is load-bearing rather than decorative. Editorial standards covers who is accountable and what happens after you send one.

Astrology on Zodiux is labelled as reflection and entertainment in the byline under every editorial page, on the birth chart result itself, and on the home page. That label is not a footer buying back a claim made higher up. The pages above are written so there is no such claim to buy back.

Why publish any of it, then

Because the reasons that survive do not depend on astrology being true.

Three reasons, weakest last

1. The astronomy is real, and it is free. Where the Sun, Moon and planets were on a given date is a solved question with one correct answer, and most places that will tell you either charge for it or put it behind an account. Today's sky and the Mercury retrograde tracker are correct whether or not you believe a word of the interpretation, and the birth chart is an ephemeris query with a wheel attached.
2. A shared vocabulary is useful even when it is not true. Saying 'that is my Virgo Moon talking' compresses something that would otherwise take a paragraph, and people think with borrowed frameworks constantly. A chart is a set of prompts about yourself arranged in an unfamiliar order, which is a serviceable way to notice something you had stopped looking at. The value is in the noticing, and it survives the mechanism being fiction.
3. It is enjoyable. Pretending otherwise would be its own small dishonesty. Reading about yourself is fun, and so is knowing that Saturn really was at 14° Aries at noon UTC on the day this page first published, because an algorithm computed it rather than a copywriter choosing something atmospheric.

None of the three requires astrology to work. All three collapse if the site is vague about which sentence is which — which is why this is a page with a table in it rather than a line of small print.

If you think astrology is nonsense

You may be right, and this page is not going to argue with you. But the disagreement is narrower than it usually looks.

The astronomical half is not a matter of opinion. The positions come from published algorithms in an MIT-licensed library you can read, and any figure on the site can be checked against an independent source. If one of them is wrong, that is a bug rather than a difference of view, and hello@zodiux.io is where it goes.

The interpretive half asks you to accept nothing. It is labelled as tradition throughout and is never offered as evidence. It is not forecast-free, and pretending otherwise would be the kind of quiet overclaim this page exists to refuse: each sign hub carries a daily reading keyed to the Moon's current position, and the structured data calls it what it is. What that reading describes is the mood a lunar transit is traditionally read as carrying — not a prediction that anything will happen to you. A reader who takes the calculator and ignores every adjective has had the full value of the site — that is a design decision, not a concession.

What we would ask is that you judge this site on what it says rather than on what astrology sites usually say. The methodology cluster publishes the library, the zodiac convention, the constant we hold fixed, the point at which the time-zone data stops being trustworthy, and the things we refuse to compute at all. That is a longer list of admitted limits than most sites publish, and it is public precisely so you can hold us to it.