Primary Directions Doctrine

Purpose

This document defines the constitutional doctrine packet for Moira's primary-directions subsystem.

It exists because primary directions are not a single settled technique. They are a doctrinal family with substantial historical and mathematical ambiguity.

Before Moira expands its implementation breadth, it must state clearly:

• what primary directions are based on
• what each major method family is mathematically doing
• what each method family claims interpretively
• where the historical tradition is ambiguous
• what Moira should admit, defer, or reject

This document is therefore a doctrine and frontier-governance packet. It is not itself the backend standard, but it no longer serves only as pre-Phase-1 work.

The remaining-frontier governance packet now lives in:

• remaining_primary_directions_frontiers.md
• primary_directions_constitutional_alignment.md
• primary_directions_invariant_register.md
• primary_directions_validation_codex.md

Foundational Thesis

Primary directions are based on the apparent daily rotation of the celestial sphere.

Their common logic is:

1. a promissor is moved by primary motion
2. a significator defines a target relation
3. the arc required for perfection is measured
4. that arc is converted into life-time by a key

Everything beyond that common substrate is doctrinal variation.

Constitutional Rule

For primary directions, accepted label does not override explicit doctrine.

Moira may acknowledge historically accepted, textually attested, or software-accepted names. But it admits only the mathematically explicit subset it can define, test, and defend.

Where a tradition is composite, Moira decomposes before it admits.

This means:

• familiar method names do not license hidden ambiguity
• software parity does not justify synthetic black-box behavior
• unresolved doctrine remains visible until its governing law is explicit

Shared Mathematical Foundations

Across the historical family, primary directions generally presuppose:

• a natal astronomical figure
• a promissor
• a significator
• a directional relation between them
• a directional arc
• a time key converting arc to years, months, or other symbolic time

The major mathematical questions are:

1. What exactly is being moved?
2. In what space is it being moved?
3. What target relation counts as perfection?
4. How is latitude treated?
5. How is converse motion defined?
6. How is arc converted into time?

Shared Interpretive Foundations

Primary directions are traditionally treated as perfection-based timing techniques.

The common interpretive claim is:

• when the promissor perfects its directed relation to the significator, a corresponding period, event, condition, or activation is indicated in life

The exact meaning depends on:

• what the promissor signifies
• what the significator signifies
• what relation perfects
• what doctrine governs that method

So interpretation is not separable from the mathematical construction. Different constructions imply different kinds of meaning.

Core Doctrinal Axes

These are the major axes Moira should formalize before widening implementation.

1. Geometry Method

This answers:

• how the directional arc is constructed geometrically

Examples:

• Placidus mundane
• Placidian classic / semi-arc
• Regiomontanus
• Campanus
• Topocentric
• Morinus
• Porphyry
• Alcabitius
• Along Ecliptic

Interpretive implication:

• the geometry chosen defines what kind of perfection is being treated as meaningful

2. Direction Space

This answers:

• where the directional relation lives

Known families:

• In Mundo
• In Zodiaco
• Field Plane

Interpretive implication:

• In Mundo emphasizes actual bodily placement in the rotating sphere
• In Zodiaco emphasizes zodiacal relations and sign-based aspectual logic
• Field Plane appears to treat zodiacal points with latitude-bearing or latitude-conditioned projection, but the doctrine is historically ambiguous

3. Motion Doctrine

This answers:

• how direct and converse motion are defined

Known families:

• Direct
• Traditional converse
• Neo-converse

Interpretive implication:

• converse is not merely a software toggle; it changes how the symbolic direction of perfection is understood

4. Time Key Doctrine

This answers:

• how measured arc is converted into time

Known families:

• static keys
• dynamic keys
• symbolic keys

Interpretive implication:

• the key does not change the geometry of the direction
• it changes the temporal doctrine of manifestation

5. Target Doctrine

This answers:

• what may serve as promissors and significators

Known classes:

• planets
• nodes
• angles
• house cusps
• fixed stars
• zodiacal aspects
• mundane aspects
• parallels / rapt parallels
• antiscia / contra-antiscia

Interpretive implication:

• what a system admits as a valid target is part of the doctrine, not a minor option
• some apparent "target families" are actually mixed target-and-geometry doctrines; parallels are the clearest current case and should not be admitted globally until their governing law is explicit

The governing target-family audit now lives in:

• primary_directions_target_family_matrix.md

5a. Relation / Perfection Doctrine

This answers:

• what kind of meeting counts as perfection

Known classes:

• conjunction
• opposition
• zodiacal aspect
• parallel
• contra-parallel

Interpretive implication:

• some apparent targets are better understood as relation classes
• a relation may later be realized computationally as a derived point in one method family without becoming a universal target class

5b. Branch Preset Doctrine

This answers:

• how a documented runtime branch should be named and selected in code

Moira now exposes named branch presets for the currently admitted runtime surfaces. The purpose is not convenience alone. The purpose is to prevent callers from silently rebuilding doctrinally meaningful combinations from loose policy fragments.

Interpretive implication:

• a branch name is part of the doctrine
• a preset should correspond to a validated runtime surface, not a vague menu convenience
• new mathematical branches should be added by naming and validating a new preset, not by widening an old one implicitly

6. Latitude / Projection Doctrine

This answers:

• whether and how latitude is retained, suppressed, projected, or assigned

Interpretive implication:

• many disputes in primary directions are actually disputes about latitude and projection, not about the abstract idea of directions itself

Method Families

The following are the major families Moira should recognize doctrinally.

They are not yet implementation commitments.

A. Mundane Directions

Mathematical Basis

• the actual body or point is treated in the rotating celestial sphere
• perfection is measured mundanely, not merely by zodiacal longitude
• house circles, semi-arcs, declination, and right ascension are central

Interpretive Meaning

• events arise from the perfected relation of actual celestial placement and bodily presence in the world-frame
• this is usually considered the most concrete or physically grounded family

Historical Standing

• strongly attested
• central to the traditional literature

Doctrinal Notes

• conjunctions and oppositions between bodies are historically native here
• wider aspect doctrine is more disputed

B. Zodiacal Directions

Mathematical Basis

• the promissor is treated as a zodiacal point
• perfection is measured in zodiacal relation rather than only in bodily sphere
• longitude and zodiacal aspect structure become primary

Interpretive Meaning

• events arise from perfected zodiacal relationship, often closer to sign and aspect symbolism than to bodily mundane contact

Historical Standing

• strongly attested, but implemented differently across traditions

Doctrinal Notes

• one major ambiguity is whether zodiacal points are treated with latitude zero or with some retained/assigned latitude

C. Field-Plane Directions

Mathematical Basis

• best understood as a latitude-bearing or latitude-conditioned zodiacal direction family
• neither purely mundane nor purely zero-latitude zodiacal
• often connected to zodiacal aspects directed with non-zero latitude or latitude rules

Interpretive Meaning

• likely intended to preserve zodiacal aspect meaning while retaining a more embodied or spatially conditioned relation than plain longitude alone

Historical Standing

• real as a family label in later software and in retrospective historical discussion
• not cleanly standardized

Doctrinal Notes

• this is currently one of the largest ambiguity zones
• Moira should not implement field_plane as a single opaque mode
• it should eventually be decomposed into explicit sub-doctrines:
  • latitude source
  • projection rule
  • aspect latitude rule
  • relation measurement rule

Geometry Families

These are the major geometric lineages Moira is likely to encounter.

Placidus Mundane

Mathematical Basis

• directions are constructed through the Placidian mundane framework now implemented in Moira
• the current engine uses right ascension, declination, semi-arc structure, mundane fraction, and directional arc

Interpretive Meaning

• perfection of mundane relation within the Placidian framework

Standing in Moira

• already implemented
• presently the only admitted method

Placidian Classic / Semi-Arc

Mathematical Basis

• historically central Placidian family using semi-arc logic
• closely related to the existing Moira implementation, but not identical to the present narrowed engine

Interpretive Meaning

• still fundamentally mundane, but with broader traditional Placidian doctrine

Standing in Moira

• likely the best second method to admit

Regiomontanus

Mathematical Basis

• directions are constructed through house circles and under-the-pole logic
• significantly different from Placidian construction

Interpretive Meaning

• perfected relation under a Regiomontanian spatial doctrine

Standing in Moira

• historically central
• a major branch, not a minor variant

Campanus / Topocentric / Other Under-the-Pole Families

Mathematical Basis

• share some structural kinship as under-the-pole or alternate house-circle families
• differ in how the pole and derived chart quantities are defined

Interpretive Meaning

• similar perfection logic, but through a different geometrical doctrine

Standing in Moira

• later-stage admissions after Placidian and Regiomontanian branches are constitutionalized

Along Ecliptic and Equalized Families

Mathematical Basis

• simplify or reframe direction by using ecliptic or equal-house style structures

Interpretive Meaning

• generally more schematic and less sphere-native than mundane families

Standing in Moira

• lower priority than the historically central branches

Ambiguity Registry

These are the major ambiguity zones Moira must track explicitly.

1. Field Plane

Ambiguity:

• not one universally defined method
• often used as a label for latitude-bearing zodiacal aspectual directions

Moira stance:

• treat as a doctrine family, not a single method toggle

2. Zodiacal Aspects with Latitude

Ambiguity:

• some traditions suppress latitude
• others assign or retain latitude to aspectual points

Moira stance:

• treat latitude treatment as explicit doctrine, not an ambient default

3. Converse Doctrine

Ambiguity:

• traditional converse and neo-converse are not the same

Moira stance:

• treat converse doctrine as a first-class axis

4. Promissor / Significator Scope

Ambiguity:

• historical systems differ on what targets are admitted

Moira stance:

• define admissible target classes per method family

5. Apparent vs True Position

Ambiguity:

• different software may expose or hide these assumptions

Moira stance:

• keep policy explicit

6. Historical vs Modern Experimental Extensions

Ambiguity:

• some modern software expands directions beyond what was historically practiced

Moira stance:

• separate historically attested doctrine from modern experimental extensions

Admission Categories

Moira should classify primary-direction doctrines into these buckets.

These categories are epistemic, not cosmetic. A branch may be implemented and still remain non-verified if its doctrine or validation standing is incomplete.

Historically Attested

• clearly documented in traditional or early modern practice

Historically Grounded Reconstruction

• not directly preserved as a turnkey modern procedure, but reconstructible from doctrine and sources

Modern Software-Conventional

• real in contemporary software ecosystems, but not clearly identical with a stable historical doctrine

Experimental / Research

• mathematically coherent, but interpretively or historically unsettled

Verified

• mathematically explicit
• doctrine-explicit
• validation-backed enough to stand as a normal admitted method inside Moira

Current Stabilized Runtime Core

After the geometry sovereignty pass, Moira's current runtime-admitted and consumer-safe primary-direction geometry core is:

• Placidus mundane
• Ptolemy / semi-arc
• Placidian classic / semi-arc
• Meridian
• Regiomontanus
• Campanus
• Topocentric

Morinus is admitted with an explicit doctrinal limit:

• aspect-plane branch: distinct and source-backed when service-layer context is supplied
• conjunction-style branch: shared with the equatorial family on current evidence

Porphyry is not part of the consumer runtime surface.

This means the center of gravity for further work shifts away from geometry labels and toward:

• time-key maturity
• target-family maturity
• validation fixtures against worked examples

Doctrine-Loss Reconstruction

• a branch built because the historical or software label survives, but the full governing law does not survive cleanly
• Moira reconstructs only the explicit subset it can define
• the loss is stated openly instead of hidden behind parity language

Rejected

• too ambiguous, internally incoherent, or insufficiently documented for admission

Moira Policy Before Expansion

Before implementing additional primary-direction capabilities, Moira should:

1. define each admitted method in both mathematical and interpretive terms
2. classify each method by historical/doctrinal standing
3. expose ambiguity rather than hiding it
4. treat direction space as a decomposed truth domain, not a menu label
5. keep time keys orthogonal to geometry method
6. distinguish historical doctrine from experimental research
7. refuse to guess at missing law merely because a label is accepted
8. mark non-verified branches honestly as experimental or doctrine_loss_reconstruction where appropriate

Doctrine Packet Produced

The current constitutional packet now includes the following companion documents:

1. primary_directions_truth_card_placidus_mundane.md
2. primary_directions_truth_card_placidian_classic_semi_arc.md
3. primary_directions_truth_card_regiomontanus.md
4. primary_directions_truth_card_zodiacal_directions.md
5. primary_directions_truth_card_field_plane_directions.md
6. primary_directions_direction_space_doctrine.md
7. primary_directions_time_key_doctrine.md
8. primary_directions_ambiguity_ledger.md
9. primary_directions_parallel_family_matrix.md
10. primary_directions_fixed_star_family_matrix.md
11. primary_directions_phase10_audit.md
12. primary_directions_constitutional_alignment.md
13. primary_directions_invariant_register.md
14. primary_directions_validation_codex.md

Further constitutional work now depends on packet-level alignment and backend-standard freeze, not on missing baseline breadth.

Research Sources

• AstroWiki, Primary Direction: https://www.astro.com/astrowiki/en/Primary_Direction
• Martin Gansten, Primary Directions: https://astrology.martingansten.com/primary-directions/
• AstroApp overview: https://astroapp.com/en/astrology-software-all/astroapp-overview
• AstroApp primary directions help: https://astroapp.com/help/1/returnsW_53.html
• AstroApp booklet: https://astroapp.com/images/astroapp_booklet_final.pdf
• Mastro manual: https://mastroapp.com/files/documentation_en.pdf
• Rumen Kolev, William Lilly and the Algorithm for His Primary Directions: https://www.babylonianastrology.com/downloads/Lilly2.pdf
• Halloran primary-directions material: https://www.halloran.com/placidus.htm https://www.halloran.com/allsoft.htm