An independent study testing whether the traditional significators of work, the ones astrologers have used for centuries to read a person's calling, can point to the field you actually landed in, and the shape of what you're drawn to.
Your chart is read blind, from birth data alone. Its predictions are frozen before your answers are opened, then compared with your real field and a standard map of your interests.
Three related questions, evaluated separately, because a method can succeed at one and fail at another.
Do the traditional vocation significators point to your actual line of work? For centuries astrologers have read the top of the chart for a person's calling, this tests whether that reading lands.
Significators examinedBeyond the job title, do the elements and planets predict what you're drawn to? Your interests are measured with the same model real career tests use, then checked against the chart.
Measured with RIASECDoes your true birth chart do better than plausible incorrect ones? This isolates whether the correct data adds anything beyond common patterns and base rates.
The comparisonsThis study publishes in three phases, each one a deeper look as the data grows: a first read of the signal at 400 charts, a stronger pass with tighter estimates at 2,500, and the complete analysis at 5,000.
A first look at the data once 400 charts are in. Early signal, wide error bars, published openly.
The analysis rerun at 2,500 charts. Tighter estimates, subgroup checks, and a look at what held up from Phase 1.
The complete analysis at 5,000 charts. The final word on what this study found, hits and misses alike.
Status: the first milestone is still filling. Preliminary findings will be published right here the moment Phase 1 completes, every participant gets word when they land, and the analysis then rolls forward through the expanded and full phases as more charts arrive.
Blind first. Your chart is calculated and its vocation predictions recorded before anyone reads your answers.
Standard instruments. Interests are captured with RIASEC, the same framework used by professional career assessments, so the results are comparable to published science.
Misses published. The findings will include where this fails, that's the point of running it.