Research a shared move

What do we need to agree on before comparing cities?

Write the joint question before reading the city order. For example: “Which places deserve further investigation for both of us, considering work and home life?” Use Overall Fit for that question. In shared-place research, it combines career, relationships, and home; Career Growth, Relationships & Social Life, and Home & Settling Down focus the comparison on one of those priorities.

Each person should name a need that the other person's favorable result cannot replace. Keep these practical conditions beside the chosen goal:

These are your planning conditions, not facts the map verifies. A city can remain an interesting astrological candidate while failing a practical requirement. Record that reason separately so you do not present a personal decision as a new calculated ranking.

The example below follows two synthetic birth records: 15 January 1990, 12:00, London, United Kingdom, and 15 June 1992, 08:30, New York, United States. Its city findings come from AstroCarto's local calculation flow. The work and home requirements are an author-created planning scenario, not customer circumstances or information calculated about these cities. The goal remains Overall Fit throughout.

How do we prepare one comparison that answers the same question for both of us?

First generate the first person's map, open Find the Best Places for Two People, and check Your birth details. Add the second person's birth date, local time, and correctly selected birthplace. If either time is uncertain, keep it marked; unknown-time limits apply to a shared recommendation as well as to individual research.

If you have no shortlist, leave Cities empty and use Find Our Best Places with the intended goal and search scope. If you already have realistic alternatives, select those cities directly and use Compare Cities for Two People. You can compare two to six distinct cities. Follow the discovery steps if you need help selecting the scope or starting with an empty list.

In this example, Worldwide discovery with Any country returned ten candidates, including Edinburgh and Bournemouth. We retain those two and manually add Lisbon as an alternative to investigate. Lisbon was not in that discovery's ten candidates. A separate single-city check gives it shared career support and a first-person career caution. We then compare Edinburgh, Bournemouth, and Lisbon together, keeping both birth records and Overall Fit unchanged.

This sequence carries an actual question from one step to the next: discovery supplies candidates; a single-city check examines an additional option; the three-city comparison shows how that option sits beside the shortlist. You do not need discovery if you already know which cities to compare.

The example uses complete shared results. If the panel shows Your Preview, it contains a limited first-person reading and a shared hint. Follow the current account-access message before filling in a two-person discussion table; do not infer the other person's findings from the preview.

How do we read the result without letting one person's benefit decide for both?

Start with the shared assessment and Where You Both Benefit, then open Both Personal Readings. Read For You and The Other Person, including What Could Work Well and What to Watch. Check what each person would need to weigh, even when the common theme looks promising.

Edinburgh and Bournemouth share Tier 1, but their personal summaries give the pair different points to discuss. The second person's strongest theme differs. In Bournemouth, home and belonging is the second person's strongest theme, while the shared benefit shown for both people is career. That is a reason to examine the home priority alongside both people's work needs, rather than declaring the first listed city the only acceptable choice.

Lisbon shows why a common benefit cannot settle the discussion on its own. Both people have career support there, yet the first person also has a career caution. This result does not identify more pronounced pressure for either person, so keep the ordinary caution at its actual level. An absence of prominent cautions for the second person does not guarantee an easy experience.

Tier numbers can skip: the two Tier 1 cities and one Tier 3 city do not imply a missing Tier 2 destination. These are relative priorities within this comparison, not a compatibility score or a prediction of a successful move. For the detailed field meanings and relative-city findings, use the shared-result reading guide.

What should go into our shared discussion list?

Keep the calculation finding and your proposed action in separate columns. The finding tells you what the result says; the action records what you decide to investigate. Neither person needs to accept a practical compromise simply because a city has a high tier.

For the example's work-and-home question, a discussion list could look like this:

This table is an author-suggested discussion worksheet based on the example, not an AI answer, verified local information, or a table the product automatically saves. The proposed responsibilities are planning choices. No work arrangement, housing option, or budget has been confirmed for any city.

The immediate outcome is two first options to investigate and one conditional alternative. That is a complete shortlist outcome even though it does not pick one final winner. The two Tier 1 candidates still need practical checks; Lisbon stays conditional because its shared support does not remove the first person's caution.

For your own results, record the date and birth inputs used, selected goal, city, shared finding, each person's support or caution, provisional status, condition for keeping the city, next check, and who will do it. If someone disagrees, write the unresolved condition. Do not replace that disagreement with an invented combined score.

If you decide to exclude a city because of a confirmed practical obstacle, keep that reason beside the original result. You can remove it from the selected city list and rerun the analysis for the remaining places, while retaining a note explaining why it was removed. If only one city remains, use the single-city action; it will not provide a comparison tier. The new calculation does not establish the practical obstacle for you.

How do we choose what to investigate next?

Choose the next action from the unresolved question in the discussion list:

Keep the discussion note somewhere you can both revisit. Stored birth details are reusable inputs; they do not save this shortlist, the worksheet, or a shared report. Do not assume a restored form is a cross-device result history or a shared-report PDF.

You can also keep the candidate cities in My Places. The saved city list is separate from your shared findings and discussion worksheet.

If timing becomes the next question, Best Time to Move studies one person's accurate birth details, a selected city, and a goal. It does not calculate one joint moving date for both people. Keep that individual research separate from the practical calendar you need to agree together.

For future sessions, store each person’s birth details, then select and check the intended records before a new calculation. Keep the discussion worksheet separately from those reusable inputs.

Create your map and start your shared-place research.