Are the more sensitive points the more accurate it is?

Many people mistakenly believe that the more points that can be displayed in a horoscope, the more in-depth the interpretation will be. But the actual situation is often the opposite. With too many points, if there are no clear ordering rules, the interpretation will quickly slip from "structural judgment" to "symbol accumulation". You will see a lot of sentences that sound like they make some sense, but they are not coherent with each other, and in the end they just make the whole disk more confusing.

What astrology really needs is never unlimited expansion, but the ability to filter. You have to know which ones are skeletons, which ones are modifications, and which ones are just background noise.

The key to whether a sensitive point is worthy of entering the main line is not whether it can be calculated, but whether it is qualified to speak in this disk. The so-called qualification usually comes from several conditions: whether it is closely connected with the sun and moon rising, life lord, four axes, personal planets or key house lords; whether it is directly related to the current issue; whether it is repeatedly supported by other evidence; whether it can find a verifiable landing point in reality.

As long as there are too many missing in these layers, no matter how "interesting" that point is, it is more suitable as a note rather than the main line.

Many people dare not delete bits because they are worried that if they delete it, they will miss the truth. But truly mature disk reading is just the opposite. It requires you to dare not to read low-weighted information. Because not every point deserves to be explained, not every symbolic word should be included in the main line, and not every highlight is worth lifting to the center.

Therefore, screening for sensitive points is not essentially about subtraction and laziness, but about protecting judgment. What you delete is not "knowledge" but the noise that interferes with the main thread.

Because "thin" does not mean "deep". The content can be packed with asteroids, fixed stars, Arabian points, midpoints, and various supplementary explanations, but if it doesn't explain why these points are important, why they should be read now, and why they support the same main line, it will still be shallow. It just puts the burden of reading on people.

The real depth will tell you why certain points must be brought forward and why other points must be put aside temporarily. It’s not about the depth, it’s about the judgment behind the sorting.

The most stable order is to first look at the core market and confirm two to three main conclusions that have been established. Then screen the sensitive points again with four questions: Is it closely connected to the core point? Is it relevant to the current issue? Is there any other evidence that duplicates this? Can we find a landing point in reality? Only points with clear answers are worthy of entering the main line.

When you can steadily delete those points that "look interesting but are not important enough", your judgment will be deeper, clearer, and more like a real chart reading, rather than a stack of astrolabe data.