A structured comparison of viable cities using legal, financial, health, work and relationship evidence, with planet–angle symbolism as a secondary layer.
Checks 1–5: legal access
- Residency or visa route.
- Work or study rights.
- Processing time and document burden.
- Tax and social-insurance implications.
- Partner, child or dependent eligibility.
Mark each pass, uncertain or fail. A fail on a non-negotiable removes the city; an uncertain item needs an official source and verification deadline.
Checks 6–10: money and housing
- Net income or funding.
- Rent, deposits and guarantor rules.
- Healthcare and insurance costs.
- Transport, food and utilities.
- Emergency and return fund.
Use a pessimistic exchange rate and realistic neighborhood rents. “Affordable country” averages are not a personal budget.
Checks 11–15: health, safety and daily life
- Required healthcare and medication access.
- Personal and identity-specific safety.
- Climate, pollution and accessibility.
- Commute and essential services.
- Sleep, food and routine compatibility.
Astrology cannot assess risk. Use current local evidence, professional advice and firsthand testing.
Checks 16–20: opportunity and relationships
- Relevant jobs, programs or clients.
- Licensing and language requirements.
- Professional and social networks.
- Partner or family impact.
- Community and discrimination climate.
Interview people with comparable circumstances. A city's tourism image is not its workday reality.
Checks 21–25: astrocartography and test evidence
- Exact planet–angle label.
- Measured line distance and tool.
- Relocated-chart question.
- Birth-time confidence.
- Result of a visit, remote project or trial.
Assign this group less weight than the hard gates. Use the distance guide, compare no more than three finalists, and define what evidence would change your mind.
Build a score that cannot hide a failed gate
Use three statuses before numerical scoring: pass, uncertain and fail. A hard-gate failure excludes a city even if its weighted preference score is high. Uncertain items remain visible and receive no optimistic score until verified. This avoids averaging a missing visa route with good cafés and a favorite line.
For remaining cities, choose weights before researching which one you emotionally prefer. A sample allocation might be 25 percent legal and financial stability, 20 percent health and safety, 20 percent work or education, 15 percent housing and daily life, 10 percent relationships and community, 5 percent reversibility and 5 percent astrological reflection. Adjust these to the decision, but never let symbolism overrule a protected need.
Record source, access date and confidence beside each number. A landlord's estimate, an official regulation and a friend's anecdote should not appear equally certain.
Run a pre-mortem for the top three
Imagine it is one year after the move and the plan failed. For each city, list the five most plausible causes. These might include visa delay, unaffordable renewal, unsuitable school, professional isolation, language fatigue or lack of healthcare. Add an early warning and prevention step for each cause.
Now run the opposite exercise: imagine the move worked. Which actions made that happen? Examples include securing housing before arrival, joining a professional group, arranging medication continuity, maintaining a writing routine or building language skill. The writer workflow shows how a goal-specific routine can turn a vague city idea into a test.
Finally, write the exit threshold. Decide how much money, time or wellbeing you can risk before pausing. A fallback plan is not pessimism; it prevents sunk-cost thinking and makes a bold experiment safer.
A six-week city test template
Week one tests administration, transport and essential services. Week two tests ordinary work or study. Week three tests social and professional access. Week four tests health routines, rest and cost. Week five explores the map prompt through one defined behavior. Week six reviews evidence and interviews one person who disagrees with your conclusion.
If travel is impossible, run a smaller remote test using official research, neighborhood calls, job applications and place-linked collaboration. It cannot reproduce residence, but it can reveal missing assumptions before a deposit or visa application.
Make the final recommendation auditable
Finish with a one-page decision memo: selected city, rejected alternatives, hard-gate evidence, weighted totals, largest uncertainties, trial result, fallback and next verification date. Add the line label only as a secondary interpretive note.
Revisit the memo when facts change. A new visa rule, rent level, diagnosis, job offer or family need can legitimately change the answer. Good decisions are updated by evidence rather than defended because a map once looked convincing.
Make the scorecard resistant to wishful scoring
Define each scale before researching. For housing, a five might mean verified options below a fixed share of net income within a maximum commute; it cannot simply mean “seems affordable.” Attach a source, date and confidence level to every factual score. Unknown is not average—it is a research task.
Run sensitivity analysis by changing weights. If one city wins only when astrology receives a high weight or one uncertain estimate is treated optimistically, the result is fragile. Also keep a veto column for legal access, essential healthcare, safety and minimum budget. A veto cannot be compensated by good weather or a preferred line.
After scoring, write the strongest case against the leader and the conditions that would reverse the decision. Then choose a bounded next step: official inquiry, local interview, remote project or normal-life visit. Recheck volatile facts immediately before commitment. The shortlist is a decision record, not a ranking of cosmic worth.
Evidence boundary: The worksheet improves consistency; it does not convert symbolic interpretation into scientific evidence. Preserve source dates, unresolved uncertainty and plausible non-astrological explanations. For any high-stakes decision, verify current legal, medical, financial, educational or contractual facts with the responsible authority and a qualified professional where appropriate.
See it on your own chart
Explore the interactive demo with example charts. Your personal 40-line map, built from your own birth data, is a one-time €9.99 / $9.99 — no subscription.
Frequently asked questions
How many cities should I compare?
Begin broadly, then narrow to three finalists that pass legal, financial, health and safety gates.
How much weight should astrocartography receive?
Keep it secondary and lower than non-negotiable practical evidence. It can break a close tie or generate trial questions.
What is a hard gate?
A condition that must be satisfied, such as legal residency, essential healthcare or a viable total budget.
Should the nearest line always win?
No. Distance is descriptive, not a quality score, and the angle, natal context and city conditions all matter.
How do I compare a city with no nearby line?
Treat it as a valid candidate, inspect the relocated chart and rely on practical and firsthand evidence.
What is the best final test?
A normal-life visit or bounded work/study project with written criteria and a fallback plan.