Ask AI about your results

Where should I start, and what context is available?

Open the result that contains the point you want explained. The three entry points work differently:

The comparison action may be labelled Ask AI follow-up or Ask AI to explain this comparison. Use the action beside your comparison results. If an opening question has already sent, read the response and use the message box for your more specific question.

For city and comparison questions, provide the result details you need the answer to use. A general question or suggested follow-up does not establish that every comparison field is available. A Personal Report attachment provides selected report context, rather than all account reports, the entire PDF, or every evidence item.

If a field is unfamiliar, use the guides to read single-city results, read a city comparison, or trace Personal Report evidence. Keep the original result available for the checks below.

How do I ask a follow-up that explains a real trade-off?

A useful question identifies which result, which goal, what the result says, and what you do not understand. Instead of asking only “Why is the second city good?”, ask how its support and cautions can coexist with its position.

This teaching example uses synthetic birth details: 15 January 1990, 12:00, London, United Kingdom. The selected Compare Cities goal is Career & recognition. These are example outputs, rather than a customer outcome or a recommendation for everyone with an interest in these cities.

The comparison's opening question asked for an explanation of these three cities for career and recognition. In the recorded first answer, AI said Lisbon did not appear in the supplied career-line list and treated Berlin as the clearer alternative. That conflicted with the result: Lisbon had listed career evidence and ranked second.

The follow-up supplied the actual results and asked AI to correct that reading. Here is a shorter suggested version you can adapt; it is not a verbatim transcript:

I am reading a Career & recognition comparison. Paris is #1 with Strong support and Low caution; Lisbon is #2 with Light support and Moderate caution; Berlin is #3 with Weak support and Low caution. Lisbon lists Mercury MC at 304 km and Saturn MC at 277 km, with Neptune MC as a caution. Explain how Lisbon can be second while still having mixed signals. Keep the original order, distinguish position from support strength, and give me questions to investigate about a real job. Do not invent missing distances or calculate a new ranking.

Use your own result's city names and values. If the answer discusses a particular line, include that line's full label and displayed distance too. If the result does not show a value, say it is unavailable rather than filling it in.

In the recorded follow-up, AI acknowledged Lisbon's evidence and its position above Berlin. It also separated two useful ideas:

• Position is the city's place within your selected comparison and goal. Second place does not itself mean strong support.
• Support and caution describe different parts of the result. Lisbon can have Light support and Moderate caution while remaining ahead of a city with Weak support. Berlin's Low caution does not turn Weak support into Strong support.

That gives you a more precise research question: “What would I need to check about this job for Lisbon's mixed reading to be acceptable?” It does not establish whether Lisbon has better vacancies, pay, or working conditions.

How do I check the answer before using it?

Return to the original result and check the mode, goal, cities, labels, and evidence. Keep a supported explanation; correct a mismatch; leave unavailable information unresolved. An AI explanation does not recalculate the comparison or prove its scoring formula.

In the same three-city example, the follow-up improved the reading but still needed checking:

Finish the main example with a short research note. This is an author-suggested format, not an AI-generated verdict or a saved product field:

1. Checked result: For this career comparison, Paris is #1 Strong/Low, Lisbon #2 Light/Moderate, and Berlin #3 Weak/Low. Lisbon's listed support and caution both matter. Displayed 0 km is approximate.
2. Useful explanation: Second place is relative to the selected alternatives. An explanation about communication, responsibility, or unclear expectations can help frame questions; it does not establish how a particular employer behaves. Reject the claim that Lisbon has no listed career evidence and the claim of an exact zero distance.
3. Next investigation: Ask a prospective employer to clarify duties, reporting lines, and promotion criteria. Separately check language expectations, work eligibility, and a budget using actual offers and costs. Record the answers before deciding whether to keep Lisbon on your shortlist.

You have now completed the basic workflow: identify a real ambiguity, ask with the relevant results, check the response, and turn the useful interpretation into a specific investigation. Use the following examples if you are working with a different result type.

If you only want to discuss one city

Single-city Check City answers a different question from Compare Cities. In a second recorded example using the same synthetic birth details, the Paris result showed Sun MC at 0 km — Strong / close, Venus MC at 341 km — Broad, and Saturn MC at 606 km — Wide context.

These labels belong to individual line entries. They are different from a comparison's city-level support and caution labels or its ranking.

Opening the single-city AI action kept the earlier conversation in this session. Its first response still referred to Paris's Compare Cities ranking. Switching entry points had not removed that earlier context.

Make the new scope explicit. A suggested question is:

I am now reading only the Paris Check City result, not ranking cities. It shows Sun MC at 0 km, Strong / close; Venus MC at 341 km, Broad; and Saturn MC at 606 km, Wide context. These are rounded distances. Explain the three lines in proportion, then suggest questions about a public-facing job. Keep job availability and salary separate from map interpretation.

In the recorded follow-up, AI discussed the closest Sun line, the broader Venus context, and the more distant Saturn context separately. It stopped ranking cities in that answer. The useful distinction is to avoid giving a Wide context line the same proximity as a Strong / close line. An interpretation about responsibility can become a question about workload and authority in the actual role; it is not evidence that the role will be demanding or successful.

If you are asking about a complete Personal Report

This is a separate product mode using the same synthetic birth details. Its report is titled “Los Angeles leads overall, but each theme has a different leader” and compares Los Angeles, Nassau, Cork, Münster, and Brisbane. These are not the Paris/Lisbon/Berlin comparison results.

The report names Los Angeles as the overall leader and Münster as the career-and-money theme leader, while the verdict remains Mixed. From Ask AI about this report, check that the attachment shows the matching title. Then ask a focused question, for example:

In this attached Personal Report, why can the overall leader still have a Mixed verdict? Name the overall leader and the career-and-money theme leader. Separate overall order, theme leadership, verdict, and confidence. Use the report's evidence and identify any missing information.

In the recorded answer, AI correctly named Los Angeles and Münster. Those facts can be checked in the report. The overall leader need not lead every theme, and leading the order does not remove conflicting evidence. Use the career theme if that is your priority rather than treating overall first place as a complete answer.

High confidence is an internal report assessment, to be read alongside the evidence, birth-time sensitivity, and house-system checks. It is not a probability of getting a job, earning more, or being happy after a move. A Mixed verdict can coexist with high confidence because confidence and the direction of the evidence answer different questions.

Check the scope of the attachment too. In this example, the full report's Evidence explorer showed 152 evidence items, while the chat card showed 3 ranked places · 5 goal sections. The report's five compared cities, the attachment's selected places, and the evidence-item count are different things. AI's reply mixed those counts; do not use its list as proof that it audited all 152 items. To ask about an individual record, locate it in Evidence explorer and include its complete label and relevant values in your question.

For example, Sun 120° to MC at 87.8 km and Mars 90° to MC at 525.7 km are angle-aspect records in this report. Preserve the 120° and 90° labels; they are not interchangeable with an ordinary Sun MC line. Ask what the listed support or trade-off means without asking AI to invent missing records or reverse-engineer the score.

What should I do after changing a city, goal, birth detail, or report?

Generate the result for the new question first, then enter AI from that result and state what changed. Old messages and generated reports do not rewrite themselves when you change an input.

If the new response still uses old cities or the wrong goal, restate the current mode and relevant fields before continuing. Suggested follow-ups are starting points; add the specific new result when it matters. If your birth time is uncertain, use the guidance for unknown birth time. Asking AI does not resolve missing birth-time information.

What should I check about access, credits, and saved conversations?

If a question does not send, first confirm that the intended result has loaded. Then check the chat's sign-in, access, and credit message. Follow that specific prompt rather than repeatedly submitting the same question. Having access to a report and having credits to ask AI are separate conditions; neither establishes access to every history or export feature.

Keep these records separate:

• Research notes: Your checked facts, useful explanation, and next investigation. You can retain these even when you are not relying on chat history.
• Chat history: Synchronization depends on sign-in, eligible account access, and a completed response. Do not assume every conversation has been saved. If history access is available, check it before relying on it as your only record.
• Download Chat: When you have messages and the required signed-in access, this action exports the conversation as a TXT file. It preserves what was said, including any mistakes; it does not validate the answer.
• Report PDF: A report document, with its own access conditions. It is separate from the conversation TXT and does not automatically include your follow-up discussion.

Use the current account and action messages for allowances; this guide does not maintain a separate price or credit table. For data handling, read the privacy policy.

Return to the result you are studying, or generate your map if you have not started. If you need to choose a report first, use the reports and interpretation guide.