Open questions

The synthesis backlog captured during extraction — contradictions to resolve, prāṇa chains to build, attributions to confirm. A growing, well-formed layer is a desired output, not a gap.

resolvedempty stubs160 shown

Q1★★★Anila vs Anala at the SE corner (53.43) — UPDATED, Step 2Text-critical & corner-deity clusterbrihat
New evidence from the door verses (Sanskrit read visually): (a) 53.71 calls the 32-pada door series "analādīnām" — *of Anala and the rest* — and Bhat translates "beginning with Śikhin," i.e. within this edition Anala is simply another name of the NE-corner deity Śikhin; (b) 53.119 uses *śikhin* as a common noun for fire (śikhi-bhayam = fire-danger) in the SE water row. Net effect: the NE corner is fire-named twice over (Śikhin 53.43, Anala 53.71), and the harmonization "the variant Anala originally belonged to the SE corner" becomes LESS likely inside Bhat's text — if SE were Anala, 53.71's label for the NE-led series would be incoherent. The variant at 53.43 most plausibly oscillates between two names for the SAME wind-deity (Anila) vs fire-deity confusion introduced by 53.71's proximity. Still requires edition collation (Kern; Dvivedi; Sastri) — but the question has sharpened: it is now about 53.43's apparatus only, not about the system. See also Q19.
Q3★★★Where does BS itself assign dikpala Agni to SE? — MAJOR UPDATE, Step 2Text-critical & corner-deity clusterbrihat
No roster verse found in ch. 53. BUT 53.118 prescribes rooms using four deity-derived direction names in Varahamihira's own words: aiśānī (Isha-NE), **āgneyī (Agni-SE)**, nairṛtī (Nirriti-SW), mārutī (Marut-NW) — read visually. BS therefore PRESUPPOSES the standard dikpala compass at the level of its vocabulary, while its pada-deity grid runs a different scheme (fire-named deity at NE). Resolution of the Step 1 paradox: two coexisting systems, now cleanly documented. cnx-0001 remains TRADITIONAL (claimed-classical) because a nomenclature attestation is not a regency statement — but the 53.118 attestation is now logged in dir-agneya's sources as strong supporting evidence, and the upgrade likely closes via a Puranic/Manasara roster in Phase 2. Remaining BS-internal candidates: ch. 32's four circles (Step 6), Part 2.
Q6★★★Gross-limb to prana chainPrana axisbrihat
Unchanged in substance; Step 2 added raw data: lunacy from a self-opening door (53.79), epilepsy from well-vedha (53.77), cerebral disease from the falling water-pot (53.110), mental affliction from a north-raised floor (53.117) — body/mind outcomes from structure, still without stated mechanism. The bridging source remains to be found; do not force.
Q6★★★Gross-anatomy → prana bridge — second homology acquiredUpdatedbrihat
ch. 54 adds the earth-vein/body-vein homology (54.2, pra-bhumi-sira ↔ pra-sharira, cnx-0040) alongside ch. 53's building→body limb-homology. BS now gives TWO independent gross-anatomical homologies, both using literal body-anatomy vocabulary (limbs; siras/veins), neither reaching subtle-body prana/nadi/vayu language. The bridge source remains to be found. NOTE: dev-vayu (NW dikpala, 54.3) is the lexical hinge — Vayu/wind ↔ the vayus of the body — but BS does not draw it; flagged in cnx-0038, not asserted.
Q21★★★ESCALATED — flora entity type now overdueUpdatedbrihat
Ch. 55 treats trees as living, diseased, worshipped, grafted, 'tortured' bodies — squarely NOT building materials. The schema has no flora/plant type; `mat-` has carried plant species by default since Step 1. RECOMMENDATION: add type 19, Flora/Plant (`flo-`), with fields material-overlap (timber use), part-uses (fruit/bark/resin as ingredient), ecological_role (moist-soil/indicator), and cultivation notes; migrate plant `mat-` records to `flo-` via aliases (IDs immutable per §6). This touches ~30 existing records across Steps 1–4. Deferred to user decision per the schema's type-confirmation discipline (Appendix B); flagged as the highest-priority schema question now open.
Q31★★★Maya and Vishvakarman: cited authorities vs extant textsNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57)brihat
Varahamihira cites both by name (56.29; 57.8) — six centuries before our earliest extant Mayamata / Vishvakarmaprakasha manuscripts' likely dates. txt-maya and txt-vishvakarma-shastra are deliberately separate from txt-mayamata / (future) txt-vishvakarmaprakasha. Phase 2 must compare BS's attributed positions (storey 108 vs 84 digits; the 8:2:1 metal cement) against the extant texts — a genuine transmission-history probe, load-bearing for school attribution.
Q37★★★Where to source the graha→element/dosha links (the prana axis's missing middle)New in Step 5 (Jyotisha core: chs. I–II, III–XII, XV, XVI, XIX) · 2026-06-12brihat
BS Samhita gives graha GOVERNANCE (Sun→fire/medicine, Moon→water/herbs, Mars→fire/bilious, Saturn→flatulent pulses) and OMENS, but NOT the constitutive tattva (Mars=tejas/pitta, Moon=ap/kapha, etc.). Those live in the Hora skandha — Varahamihira's own Brihat Jataka (txt-brihat-jataka) — and in Ayurveda. The graha→element→dosha→body chain therefore CANNOT be completed from the Samhita; it needs a Phase-2 Brihat Jataka extraction + an Ayurveda source. Load-bearing for any Phase-3 graha-prana reasoning. The Samhita's hints (Mars-year→bilious/pitta XIX; Saturn→flatulent/vata pulses XVI; Sun→fire/Moon→water governance) are recorded as governance/effect, NOT promoted to constitution.
Q45★★★Three direction-assignment layers — do they relate?New in Step 6 (directional/body sweep: chs. XIV, XXXII, LI + Part 1 residue) · 2026-06-12brihat
The graph now holds THREE schemes assigning entities to the eight directions: (1) the dikpala compass (54.3: deity per bearing); (2) the pada-deity grid (53.43: 45 deities over the plot); (3) the Kurma-cakra (XIV: nakshatra-triad per direction). §8 already notes (1) vs (2). (3) is new. Plus a recurring directional VALENCE (cardinal + NE favourable, other intercardinals unfavourable) seen at 53.83–84, 54.5, and LI.6. Whether these are one underlying directional cosmology or independent overlays is HUB SYNTHESIS — explicitly not attempted. Logged for scheme-to-scheme comparison alongside the Phase-2 texts.
Q48★★★The four-deity circles vs the elements vs the directionsNew in Step 6 (directional/body sweep: chs. XIV, XXXII, LI + Part 1 residue) · 2026-06-12brihat
rul-earthquake-circles is presided by Vayu/Agni/Indra/Varuna — NOT the five mahabhutas (no earth/akasha circle; Indra is not an element), and NOT obviously the dikpala compass or Kurma triads. Its per-circle disease effects look dosha-flavoured (Wind→kapha/phlegm/lunacy; Fire→pitta/jaundice/erysipelas; Indra→dysentery/vomiting). DO NOT bridge circle↔dosha or circle↔mahabhuta — that is exactly the hub synthesis now deferred. Logged as a rich but UNBUILT element/deity↔asterism↔disease node. (This is the ch.32 element-bridge the new stance explicitly says to leave open.)
Q57★★★Two yuga cycle-schemes held side-by-side: Sri Yukteswar precessional (24,000 yr) vs medieval Puranic (432,000-yr Kali Yuga)foundationsfrawley
rul-yuga-world-age-cycle carries has_internal_divergence (divergence_axis: text): the LESSER/precessional cycle (Sri Yukteswar, The Holy Science: 24,000-yr = 2 passes of the 4 yugas 4800/3600/2400/1200; low point ~499 A.D.; we are in ascending Dwapara/Bronze — Frawley's preference) vs the GREATER cycle (medieval Puranic Kali Yuga = 432,000 yr begun 3102 B.C.; maha-yugas of millions of years), which Frawley reports and criticizes as 'a speculation of medieval thinkers' with problems. Both held within one rule via school_positions (no contradicts edge — Frawley reports both and prefers the former; cycles-within-cycles, we may be in a greater Iron Age within a lesser ascending Bronze). At synthesis: reconcile the two schemes against classical Puranic/Manu sources and Blavatsky/Theosophy's conflation of the two (which Frawley flags as over-lengthening ancient history). Capture only; not resolved.
Q58★★★Nakshatra-series START divergence: Frawley's galactic-center orientation makes Mula the first, vs the standard Ashvini-first sequencefoundationsfrawley
Under Frawley's galactic-center orientation (rul-zodiac-galactic-orientation), the nakshatra Mula ('the root or source', first 13°20' of Sagittarius, containing the galactic center) is 'the first of the series of lunar constellations' and Jyeshtha ('the eldest', end of Scorpio) is the last — his evidence the ancients oriented their asterism sequence to the galactic center (patches on nak-mula, nak-jyeshtha; edges fr-fnd-galactic-mula-marks, fr-fnd-galactic-jyeshtha-end). BUT the BS/standard sequence starts the 27 nakshatras at Ashvini (Mula = index 19, Jyeshtha = index 18). Frawley's start-point is a cosmological re-orientation, not the enumeration order used for dashas/muhurta. Captured, NOT reconciled. At synthesis: is Frawley's galactic-center series-start ever a real classical alternative, or purely his interpretive overlay ('according to my interpretation', book p.48)? Confirm nak-mula.index stays 19 (enumeration) while the orientation role is a separate attribute.
Q59★★★Sri Yukteswar's The Holy Science not minted as a txt- stub — confirmfoundationsfrawley
Frawley leans heavily on Sri Yukteswar's The Holy Science (1894) for the ayanamsha epoch (499 A.D.), the 24,000-yr cycle, and the descending/ascending yuga dating table (book p.58). The file did NOT mint txt-the-holy-science this pass: every use is mediated through Frawley and no claim needs an independent endpoint (it is itself a MODERN 1894 work, not a root text, so its claims are TRADITIONAL/MODERN-via-Frawley, not CLASSICAL). Flagged for the orchestrator: mint txt-the-holy-science (text_class: modern) if Sri Yukteswar's dating is ever cited DIRECTLY (not via Frawley) elsewhere, e.g. when collating the yuga low-point date or the 21°46'/54"-rate ayanamsha. Until then, no endpoint is missing. Confirm this deferral.
Q83★★★Frawley's Dig Bala (directional strength) graha→direction map DIVERGES from the classical Vastu graha-direction scheme — surface, do not reconcileaspects-harmonics-periodsfrawley
rul-shadbala records Frawley's Dig Bala (verified OCR book p.182): Mercury & Jupiter strong in the EAST (1st house), Sun & Mars in the SOUTH (10th), Moon & Venus in the NORTH (4th), Saturn in the WEST (7th). This is an astrological house-direction strength, sitting next to the Vastu graha-direction roster the project carries elsewhere (e.g. dir-agneya's graha mapping Sun-E, Venus-SE, Mars-S, Rahu-SW, Saturn-W, Moon-NW, Mercury-N, Jupiter-NE). The two schemes DISAGREE (e.g. Frawley puts Mars in the South and Saturn in the West, but the Vastu roster puts Mars in the South yet Saturn in the West too only by coincidence on some, and differs on Mercury/Moon/Jupiter). ACTION: surface the divergence as a cross-axis note; do NOT reconcile or assert one over the other at extraction time. Candidate Phase-3 contradicts edge (conflict_axis: school) once both rosters are first-class entities.
Q93★★★New txt- source needed: Yoga Sutras (Frawley quotes-and-locates I.2)psychologyfrawley
Frawley quotes the Yoga Sutras I.2 ('yoga = negation of the thought patterns of the mindstuff') with a locus (book p.222). Per the schema's modern-author rule this is the ONE legitimate CLASSICAL claim in the chapter, sourced to the root text's own txt- entity (txt-yoga-sutras), verified:false until the Yoga Sutras itself is read, with Frawley as conduit. I reference txt-yoga-sutras in rul-yoga-psychology-vs-modern and the derived-from edge. The orchestrator should mint the txt-yoga-sutras stub (Patanjali; mula; yoga-tantra) — returned in new_txt_sources. CONFIRM the id/spelling and whether the project already has a Yoga-Sutras stub from elsewhere to avoid a duplicate. (Verifier note: grep across DataCollection shows txt-yoga-sutras occurs only inside this theme's own file — no pre-existing duplicate.)
Q94★★★Cross-book concurrence: Sun = Self/Atma across Book 1, Planets theme, and this chapter (do not auto-merge)psychologyfrawley
Three independent loci now make the Sun the soul/Self significator: Book 1 BS I.1 (Sun-as-soul motif), the Frawley Planets theme (Sun = Atma/soul-karaka), and this Psychology chapter (Sun higher = 'the true or Divine Self (Atma)', lower = ego, book p.226). This is strong cross-source corroboration — but per schema §3.2/§7 corroboration is SYNTHESIS, performed later, never asserted at extraction time, and single-author Frawley still cannot promote past draft. Flagged as a candidate for status review in Phase 2/3, not acted on now. Same caveat for Ketu = moksha/self-negation (Planets theme moksha-karaka concurs with this chapter's 'negate the self into the Divine').
Q95★★★Psychological remedies (mantra/gem/color/herb/diet) overlap the medical theme — prana mechanism unstatedpsychologyfrawley
rul-psychological-affliction-indicators prescribes mantras, gems, colors, herbs, and diet for psychological disorder (book p.222) — the same remedial toolkit the medical theme uses for somatic disease. Frawley asserts these treat mental illness 'by spiritual and occult methods' but states NO prana/subtle-energy mechanism for HOW a gem or mantra reaches the afflicted Moon/Mercury. This is a prana-chain gap to fill from a later remedies chapter (Frawley has a dedicated Remedial Measures section, and Svoboda/Book 3 may supply the subtle-energy physiology). prana_relevance left 'not yet traced' on this rule; flagged for promotion when the remedies material is extracted.
Q99★★★Verify Chandogya Upanishad III.10.3 in the root text (currently verified:false, located via Frawley)yogic-chakrasfrawley
Frawley quotes and locates Chandogya Upanishad III.10.3 ('For him the Sun does not rise, nor does it set; it is a perpetual day, for one who knows the secret spiritual teaching') as his scriptural anchor for the seventh (crown) center transcending the breath/prana cycle. The verse is minted as txt-chandogya-upanishad (stub, definition_tag CLASSICAL) with the root-text source line verified:false. Phase-2 task: locate and read the verse in the original/scholarly translation to flip verified:false → true and confirm wording and reference.
Q100★★★Frawley's INFERRED secondary planet placements are not classical exaltations — model them, and how?yogic-chakrasfrawley
From the chakra-numerology cycle (each side totalling 14) Frawley INFERS secondary good placements: Jupiter also in Gemini, Mercury in Leo, Saturn in Scorpio, Venus in Aquarius, Mars in Sagittarius (book p.232). These are his extrapolations, NOT the classical exaltation set (which this assembly's chakra-exalt edges capture). Decision: should these inferred placements be modeled as separate (weaker, MODERN-Frawley-only) edges, and how distinguished from the seven classical exaltations? Currently carried only as notes on the relevant ras- patches / rule caveats.
Q111★★★pra-prana minted as a stub — the project's organizing axis still lacks a full record and its gross<->subtle vayu relation is undrawnbackmatterfrawley
pra-prana ('life-force/breath') is finally minted here (it was astonishingly absent from the graph), but only as a STUB from a terse glossary gloss (book p.326) + a Preface phrase ('the life-force that moves with every breath', book p.17). The back matter does NOT develop: prana's differentiation into the five vayus; the relation of vata-dosha (gross bodily wind, per the Medical theme dos-vata) to the subtle vayus and to vital prana; or the akasha<->prana link. This is the recurring gross<->subtle prana gap of Book 2 (parallels Book-1 Q6 and the Frawley Medical theme's flag). The Yogic/Foundations theme or Book 3 (Svoboda) should patch pra-prana to a full draft with location_in_body (five-vayu seating) and the vata-dosha-vs-subtle-vayu disambiguation.
Q112★★★★★★ Is Svoboda's 'the building breathes / has prāṇa' a MODERN framing or a claimed-classical doctrine? (the project's single most on-thesis prāṇa claim)thesissvoboda
Svoboda's opening chapter states the project's core thesis outright: buildings 'respire' (drawing air/light/water/prāṇa in and out 'like... human lungs and skin'), a walled space develops a 'rudimentary awareness of its own limitations' that makes its prāṇa 'behave in a life-like way', and 'as you breathe, so will your dwelling' (ch.1 'Skins'/'Mind, Prāṇa, Breath', PDF pp.024–027). DOES HE PIN IT TO A LOCUS? He pins it to exactly ONE quoted-and-located authority — Dr. V. Ganapati Sthapati (a named modern Vāstu scholar/architect), *Temples of Space-Science* p.52: 'All those objects in which Vāstu gets itself established are obviously animated objects, are "breathing" substances' — plus Marsilio Ficino (*The Book of Life* p.134, a Western Renaissance source). He pins it to NO Vāstu or Ayurveda mūla verse. He further calls the breath/prāṇa/mind 'tripod' and the subtler-influences-grosser principle 'an important classical principle, employed by Āyurveda, Yoga, Tantra, and Vāstu alike' (PDF p.027) but again locates no verse. DECISION: the building-breathes claim is tagged MODERN (Svoboda + a modern secondary Vāstu authority), and the tripod/subtler-grosser principle TRADITIONAL/claimed-classical — NOT CLASSICAL. SYNTHESIS TASK: locate whether any root Vāstu text (Mayamata, Mānasāra, Samarāṅgaṇa-sūtradhāra, or a Vāstu-related Āgama/Tantra) actually states that a dwelling is animate / breathes prāṇa, OR whether this is a modern (Sthapati→Svoboda) reading. Captured as the pra-prana 'dwelling_breathes' patch and inside rul-house-as-skin. Consider whether Sthapati warrants its own txt- entity if a later chain leans on it. This is the load-bearing epistemic question for Book 3.
Q119★★★Type-decision: saṁskāra (and the 'space-saṁskāra') — is pra- the right home, or act-/rul-?vastu-vidyasvoboda
pra-samskara is minted this theme provisionally as a Prana/Body concept (system_of_origin: yoga-tantra/shared), because the core saṁskāra is a refining mind/brain impression and Svoboda extends it to a refining impression ON A SPACE ('space saṁskāra'). But a saṁskāra is arguably (a) an ACTIVITY/practice (act- — 'a thing done well', the doing of which lays the impression), or (b) a RULE/doctrine (rul- — the doctrine that well-done practice upgrades its substrate). Per Appendix-B type-discipline this is fitted to the least-bad existing prefix (pra-) and FLAGGED. Decide in synthesis whether saṁskāra stays pra-, splits (the impression = pra-, the practice = act-), or folds into a rul-. The 'space-saṁskāra' transfer specifically may want its own treatment once more dwelling-saṁskāra method appears in later chapters.
Q120★★★New root-text stubs minted on Svoboda's authority: txt-yajur-veda (named) and txt-vastusutra-upanishad (quoted-and-located) — confirm the named-vs-quoted minting disciplinevastu-vidyasvoboda
Two root-text stubs were minted this theme. (1) txt-yajur-veda is NAMED (not quoted) as the parent Veda of the upaveda Sthāpatya Veda (PDF p.046); the graph previously had txt-rig-veda, txt-atharva-veda and a generic txt-vedas but no Yajur Veda, and the rul-sthapatya-veda derived-from edge (C1) needs it — minted as a stub carrying a TRADITIONAL named-parentage claim, NO CLASSICAL verse. (2) txt-vastusutra-upanishad is QUOTED-AND-LOCATED (its p.8, PDF p.046) → CLASSICAL verse-claim, verified:false, Svoboda the conduit (per Modern-author rule §1). CONFIRM this asymmetry is correct: a merely-NAMED Veda gets a stub with no CLASSICAL claim (its existence is historiographic/TRADITIONAL), whereas a quoted-and-located text gets a CLASSICAL (verified:false) source-claim. Also: should txt-yajur-veda corresponds-to / be distinguished from the generic txt-vedas already in the graph?
Q121★★★Svoboda's MODERN historiography: BS as the seed-text the Mayamata/Mānasāra/Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra 'elaborate' — a Phase-2 lineage hypothesisvastu-vidyasvoboda
Svoboda (PDF p.050) frames the Bṛhat Saṁhitā as 'one of the earliest passages describing the details of Vāstu' (Varāhamihira, 5th–6th c. A.D., a 125-verse chapter) that 'the majority of subsequent texts, including the prominent Mayamata, Mānasāra, and Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra, elaborate on.' This is a MODERN historiographic claim (recorded as a vastu_history_placement patch on txt-brihat-samhita) about the SAME text Book 1 extracts and about the SOUTHERN (Mayamata/Mānasāra) and NORTHERN (Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra) manuals reserved for Phase 2. CAPTURE-only: do NOT assert the elaboration lineage as fact; it is one author's framing to test against the actual texts in Phase 2 (does the BS pada-grid/dikpāla material actually seed the southern/northern schemes, or do they diverge — cf. §8 scheme-vs-scheme). Logged so the lineage hypothesis is on record before Phase-2 manual extraction.
Q127★★★Modeling decision: dosha-of-space / prakriti-vikriti-of-space — adequate as rule + pra- entities, or a new sub-type?elemental-spacesvoboda
Svoboda transfers the Ayurvedic prakriti/vikriti pair onto a DWELLING (pra-prakriti-of-space, pra-vikriti-of-space) and asserts a space has a vata/pitta/kapha quality (rul-dosha-of-space), with CONDITION (vikriti) over CONSTITUTION (prakriti) in Vastu (PDF p.060). These were modeled as pra- (prana/body) entities with system_of_origin = shared (ayurveda<->vastu) plus a rul- doctrine. EXTRACTION FLAG: confirm this is adequate vs. needing a dedicated 'space-property' type (cf. the v0.3 undecided-types discipline — raise on first encounter, do not mint unilaterally). The pra- placement leans on the §2 v0.2 extension (system_of_origin: vastu/shared). Deferred to schema review.
Q131★★★pra-mahat (cosmic intelligence) vs existing pra-buddhi (individual intellect) -- merge, distinguish, or relate?expansion-contractionsvoboda
Minted pra-mahat (stub) from ch. 4 'Evolution' (PDF p.094) + the SAmkhya-evolution diagram (PDF p.090): mahat = the general/undifferentiated self-reflective transcendent intelligence, prakRti's first evolute, evolving into ahaMkAra. The graph already holds pra-buddhi (individual intellect, from Frawley). In SAmkhya, buddhi and mahat are classically the same tattva at cosmic (mahat) vs individual (buddhi) scale. QUESTION: should pra-mahat and pra-buddhi be (a) merged (one tattva, two scales -- record the absorbed id in aliases), (b) linked by a corresponds-to / scale edge (cosmic<->individual), or (c) kept fully distinct? Kept DISTINCT and un-merged at extraction time (capture, not synthesize); flagged for the synthesis layer. Also: pra-mahat overlaps the SAmkhya cascade already leaned on by the pilot's gun-* and pra-ahamkara -- confirm the cascade (PuruSa+PrakRti -> mahat -> ahaMkAra -> 3 guNas -> 5 tanmAtras -> 5 mahAbhUtas) is consistently modeled across the three Book-3 themes.
Q132★★★Svoboda's macrocosm-microcosm 'Law' and the puruSa/prakRti expansion-contraction pair -- cross-book corroboration with Frawley's Cosmic Person and the BS VAstu-PuruSa limb schemeexpansion-contractionsvoboda
ch. 4 patches pra-cosmic-person-purusha with three Svoboda fields (center_homology, expansion_contraction_role, law_of_microcosm_macrocosm). Svoboda's 'Law of Microcosm and Macrocosm' (PDF pp.089, 092: 'whatever appears in the external cosmos... appears as well in the internal human cosmos'; 'houses develop just like children and cosmoses') CONCURS with (a) Frawley's master homology on this same entity ('the stars form the cosmic man and we form a solar system within ourselves') and (b) the BS VAstu-PuruSa limb<->pada homology (pra-vastu-purusha-anga / dev-vastu-purusha). THREE-way concurrence flagged as corroboration -- but the three differ in register: Frawley = consciousness/planetary-rays, BS = a body laid on the plot grid, Svoboda = a developmental arc (expansion->plateau->death) + the center=navel=puruSa point. Are these one doctrine or three related ones? Captured as a corroboration question, NOT merged (per the dual-scheme / cross-book discipline).
Q133★★★Svoboda's prakRti-as-LIMITATION (Earth partitions Space) -- the growth-vs-constraint axis: how does it relate to the BS mandala/boundary doctrine and to the doSa/guNa of a space?expansion-contractionsvoboda
ch. 4 develops a growth-vs-constraint axis new to the corpus: prakRti's 'intrinsic nature is to limit, finitize'; 'an open space enjoys freedom of development until boundaries get applied to it and constraints appear within it. Each constraint contributes attributes to the space... these qualities help to define that space' (PDF p.092); and 'Only Earth can partition Space into residence and residue' (PDF p.095, patched onto ele-prithvi limiting_function). QUESTION: this finitization/boundary doctrine is the conceptual root of WHY a bounded dwelling acquires a specific doSa/guNa character (rul-dosha-of-space, rul-guna-of-dwelling, pra-prakriti-of-space) -- each constraint contributing defining attributes IS how a space gets its prakRti. Should this be modeled as an edge (rul-expansion-contraction / ele-prithvi -> pra-prakriti-of-space, 'limitation generates a space's constitution')? Left un-minted as an edge here (the source frames it as a general principle, not a stated relation between those two entities); flagged so the synthesis layer can decide whether to mint it.
Q138★★★Provenance of the Aintiram (and the Vāstusūtra Upaniṣad): classical root text vs modern Mayonic/Vāstu reconstruction — which epistemic tag is correct on these new stubs?shapes-mandalasvoboda
Svoboda quotes-and-locates Mayan's Aintiram p.469 ('the central dot is indicative of Time, and the Form emerging at the center is indicative of rhythm', PDF p.116) and the Vāstusūtra Upaniṣad I:4 ('Who has the knowledge of circle and line is a sthāpaka', p.47). Both are minted as txt- stubs (txt-aintiram, txt-vastusutra-upanishad) with the quoted lines tagged TRADITIONAL/CLASSICAL via the stub, verified:false, Svoboda the conduit. Open: the Aintiram is associated with the modern Mayonic (Sthapati) revival and may be a 20th-c. reconstruction rather than an ancient root text — its text_class (mula vs modern) is uncertain; likewise the Vāstusūtra Upaniṣad's date is debated. Phase-2 bibliographic check before promoting either past stub. Do NOT tag the quoted lines CLASSICAL-on-a-root-verse until the text's antiquity is confirmed.
Q145★★★BS cross-quote via Svoboda: 'the Vastu Purusha has his head turned toward the northeast' — CLASSICAL to txt-brihat-samhita through a modern conduitdirectionssvoboda
Svoboda (PDF p.147) attributes to the Brhat Samhita the statement that the Vastu Purusha 'has his head turned toward the northeast', and (p.160) that he lies face-down bowing toward Isana at NE. Svoboda names the root text but no verse number (the project's Book-1 record locates this at BS 53.51, Sikhin / House-God's head). Per the Modern-author rule this datum is CLASSICAL sourced to txt-brihat-samhita (the root text), verified via Book 1's own reading, with Svoboda the conduit — NOT CLASSICAL to Svoboda. The dir-ishanya qualitative_character patch correctly tags its own field MODERN and carries the CLASSICAL cross-quote only in prose. Flag: confirm the BS locus (53.51) when collating; this is corroboration of the Book-1 head-at-NE record, not a new classical claim.
Q153★★★Ketu-SW co-rulership: Svoboda pairs BOTH Nodes (Rahu AND Ketu) at the SW, beyond the standard graha-direction roster (Rahu-SW alone)confluencessvoboda
Svoboda's four corner-planets (Jupiter-NE, Venus-SE, Rahu-SW, Moon-NW) CONCUR with the standard Jyotisha-Vastu graha-direction roster recorded in the schema (App. A dir-agneya note: Sun-E, Venus-SE, Mars-S, Rahu-SW, Saturn-W, Moon-NW, Mercury-N, Jupiter-NE). But Svoboda ADDS Ketu as SW co-ruler (PDF p.193: 'Rahu and Ketu... the Nodes of the Moon'; doshically 'the vata that Saturn and Rahu share combines with the pitta of Mars and Ketu'), where the standard roster gives Rahu-SW alone. OPEN QUESTION: does any source place Ketu at a direction (the standard 8-fold roster has no slot for both Nodes)? Captured as a gra-ketu directional_confluence patch + connections c12/c21; not reconciled. Minor roster-extension flag for Phase 2.
Q154★★★BS cross-quotes in ch.7 (door-defects 53.67a + treasure-room/granary-in-NW) overlap Book-1's BS entities - flag as cross-book corroboration, NEVER a mergeconfluencessvoboda
** PRIORITY. Svoboda quotes-and-locates BS 53.67a (Sanskrit 'Marga-taru-kona-kupa-stambha-bhrama-viddham ashubhadam dvaram', Bhat p.481): a door pierced by road/tree/corner/well/pillar/watercourse is unfavourable (PDF p.185). He also credits 'Varahamihira's Brihat Samhita' for placing the treasure-room and granary in the NW (PDF p.195), and his door-by-direction footnote (p.196) gives a BS variant of the auspicious-door rule. These OVERLAP Book-1's BS material: rul-dvara-defects / rul-dvara-vedha (door defects), zon-treasury-granary (NW placement), and the dvara-pada rules. OPEN QUESTION (synthesis-deferred): does BS 53.67a as Svoboda quotes it match Book-1's extracted dvara-defect verses, and does Book-1 already verify the underlying Sanskrit (which would let connection c24's BS source flip verified:false->true)? The 53.67a quote is sourced CLASSICAL/verified:false to the EXISTING txt-brihat-samhita with Svoboda as conduit; per section 3.2 the cross-source overlap is surfaced, the entities are NOT merged. Flag for Phase 2 collation.
Q155★★★Planet->dosha edges from the corner-confluences (Jupiter->kapha, Moon/Saturn/Mercury->vata, Mars/Ketu->pitta, Rahu/Saturn->vata) overlap Frawley's Book-2 planet-dosha scheme - corroboration questionconfluencessvoboda
The SW/NW/NE/SE doshic compositions Svoboda builds (NE kapha-predominant via Jupiter; NW clear vata via Moon+Saturn+Mercury; SW vata-pitta via Saturn+Rahu / Mars+Ketu; SE net pitta though Venus is vata-kapha) imply planet->dosha correspondences (connections c18-c23). These OVERLAP Frawley's Book-2 graha-dosha scheme (rul-planet-element-classification, rul-graha-rulership-mechanism, and the grahas' dosha_affinity patches). OPEN QUESTION (synthesis-deferred): do Svoboda's planet->dosha assignments (esp. Venus=vata-kapha, Moon=vata-with-kapha, Jupiter=kapha, Mars=pitta, Saturn=vata, Rahu=vata, Ketu=pitta) CONCUR with or DIVERGE from Frawley's? Several look concurrent (Mars-pitta, Saturn-vata, Jupiter-kapha), but Venus and the Moon/Mercury vata-attributions need scheme-against-scheme comparison. Captured as planet->dosha edges; not reconciled. Flag for Phase 3 cross-book synthesis.
Q161★★★Sleep head-direction: Svoboda tolerates WEST (active/dreamful) where BS 53.124 FORBIDS head-W; both avoid head-N. A partial-concur / partial-diverge on rul-sleeping-orientationorganizing-spacessvoboda
BS 53.124 (CLASSICAL) proscribes sleeping with the head toward NORTH or WEST. Svoboda (PDF pp.214-215) strongly avoids head-NORTH ('unless you're dead or ready to die') - CONCUR - but treats head-WEST as merely 'active, lots of dreams' (not forbidden) and recommends head-EAST (best) and head-SOUTH (deep) - BS gives no positive ranking. So: concur on north-avoidance, DIVERGE on west (BS forbids, Svoboda tolerates), and Svoboda adds a positive E>S ranking + the svara right-side-sleeping nadi rule (pra-nadi-svara). Patched onto rul-sleeping-orientation / act-shayana; divergence flagged for §8-style scheme comparison, not reconciled.
Q162★★★Living room at CENTER (Svoboda: occupy + keep the Brahma Sthana open) vs BS's protect-the-Brahmasthana (guard from defilement, rul-protect-brahmasthana): soft divergence on how the center is treatedorganizing-spacessvoboda
Svoboda places the living room at the home's CENTER as its 'heart' and says to keep the central Brahma Sthana OPEN (PDF pp.219-220) - an occupy-the-room-but-leave-the-center-clear reading. BS gives the center no room and proscribes BUILDING on the Brahmasthana (rul-protect-brahmasthana, guard from defilement). Occupy-and-keep-open vs guard-from-defilement is a soft divergence in how the center-zone is handled (cnx-org-08 ties zon-living-room -> zon-brahmasthana). Flagged; both readings honor an unobstructed center, so this may resolve to concurrence in Phase-3 synthesis.
Q165★★★zon-water-body (Svoboda's garden pool/flowing-water feature) vs the existing BS zon-water-source (well/spring) and zon-tadaga (tank) — three distinct water zones or collapsible?gardensvoboda
Svoboda places a garden landscape pool / flowing-water feature (best NE, flow W→E or S→N; SW/behind-house destabilizing; stagnant → stagnant prāṇa). BS Book 1 minted zon-water-source (wells/springs) and zon-tadaga (a constructed tank/reservoir). None of the three is identical to Svoboda's garden ornamental/landscape pool. Minted zon-water-body as a NEW zone rather than re-mint or merge. EXTRACTION FLAG only: if Phase-2 corroboration shows they collapse, link by corresponds-to, never merge. Also note the SW-water inauspiciousness CONCURS-by-different-effect with BS rul-well-by-direction (54.97, SW well → infant mortality) — a Phase-2 comparison.
Q172★★★Type-decision: is the dharma→rūpa→bhāva→rasa cascade (and the nine rasas) a pra- concept or does it need a new type?constructionsvoboda
I minted pra-bhava-rasa-of-dwelling under pra- (Prana/Body Concept, system_of_origin shared: aesthetics↔vastu) as the least-bad existing prefix for Svoboda's bhāva/rasa-of-a-dwelling cascade, per the type-discipline instruction (provisionally fit, then flag). It is really an AESTHETIC/affective bridge (rasa-theory transferred to architecture), not a body-locus concept — the pra- fit is loose (location_in_body = n/a). The nine rasas are captured as a field, not typed. OPEN: does Vāstu's aesthetic layer (rasa/bhāva, and possibly the nine-rasas scheme) warrant its own type, or stay folded into pra-/rul-? Deferred to a reactive type-decision; do not mint a new type unilaterally.
Q173★★★Svoboda restates the BS ground-tests (refill pit + 100-paces water test) — concurs with cal-bhumi-pariksha (BS 53.91–94)constructionsvoboda
Svoboda's soil section (PDF pp.255–256) gives the pit-refill compaction test (surplus dirt = good/dense, level = acceptable, shortfall = undesirable) and the water-filled-hole test (walk 100 paces and back; undropped = good) — the SAME two procedures as Book-1 cal-bhumi-pariksha (BS 53.91–94), differing only in units (feet vs hasta). Plus a germination test (3/5-day sprouting) and a cattle-grazing fertility test. CONCURRENCE flagged on the new rul-soil-and-ground-tests-svoboda (cross_ref_note) and here; NOT merged with cal-bhumi-pariksha. SYNTHESIS: cross-book corroboration could promote cal-bhumi-pariksha's status, but corroboration is Phase-3 synthesis — not asserted now. Are Svoboda's germination & cattle tests also in BS, or his additions?
Q175★★★Workspace-Vastu is a MODERN Svoboda extension — confirm tagging & scopeordering-applicationsvoboda
Svoboda's 'Vastu at Work' (pp.287-289) applies Vastu to office and factory: a factory mapped onto the Vastu Purusha's body (head=NE control systems, right-arm=SE substation, feet=S/W admin, abdomen=clockwise lines, waste=SW, left-arm=NW shipping); office placements; cubicle-height vs prana/vata derangement; planet-keyed business facing & decor (Saturn=dark/conservative, Sun=bright/bold, Rahu=experimental, Venus=rich). This is NOT in any root text (no classical Vastu shastra addresses corporate offices) — captured as MODERN -- Svoboda throughout (rul-vastu-at-work). CONFIRM the MODERN tag is the right call (it is a genuine modern application of traditional directional/Vastu-Purusha principles, so the PRINCIPLES are traditional but the OFFICE/FACTORY APPLICATION is wholly modern). Captured the application as MODERN and noted the traditional principle-base in conditions.
Q178★★★Cross-book corroboration: griha-pravesha (Svoboda ch.11) vs BS 53.125 (Book 1); house-right-of-entrant; BS-attributed height:width ratiosordering-applicationsvoboda
Three places where Svoboda ch.11 restates BS doctrine already in Book 1: (1) griha-pravesha -- Svoboda's first-entrance rite (house-as-newborn, first-step-as-first-breath, prana arrives) CONCURS with and EXTENDS BS 53.125's act-grihapravesha (flowers/arches/water-pots/site-deity-worship/Veda-recitation); I patched act-grihapravesha rather than re-mint. (2) Boundary-wall gate rule -- Svoboda (p.287) says 'Brihat Samhita prefers that the house always sits to the right as one enters into the property through the gate' (again BS attributed with NO verse -> claimed-classical, left in residue as a how-to detail, not minted CLASSICAL), overlapping Book-1's rul-house-right-of-entrant. (3) Proportion ratios -- Svoboda (p.279) attributes height:width ratios (1:1...1:2) to Brihat Samhita (no verse), overlapping Book-1's BS proportion rules (rul-height-breadth-parity etc.; left in residue). QUESTION: confirm these are corroborations of the same BS passages and, in Phase 2, link cross-book via corresponds-to rather than merge.
Q179★★★New entity needed for Ayadi calculation (cal-ayadi) -- house 'wedded' to owner via the moon's horoscope positionordering-applicationsvoboda
Svoboda (p.280) says a house's absolute dimensions are commonly fixed by the AYADI calculations, which calibrate dimensions to the moon's position in one or more owners' horoscopes and attune them to the structure's yoni/orientation, so the house 'is designed to be a living organism that resonates with its inhabitants' and the master/mistress get 'wedded' to it. This is strongly on-thesis (house-as-resonant-organism) but the Ayadi procedure itself (a cal- Calculation per schema type 13) is NOT yet minted anywhere in the graph (no cal- prefix exists in existing_ids). Left in residue (INDEXED SKIM) rather than minted, since this theme is attribute-harvest and the Ayadi math is not given here. promote? -- recommend minting cal-ayadi from a source that gives the actual shadvarga procedure (Phase 2 Mayamata/Manasara, or BS if present). Flagged so it is not lost.
Q1★★Anila/Anala (53.43) — context addedUpdatedbrihat
54.3 names the NW dikpala as Vayu (Wind) and the SE dikpala as Agni (Fire). This sharpens the picture: in the DIKPALA system wind belongs to the NW and fire to the SE; in the PADA system the SE corner holds Anila (wind, v.l. Anala/fire). The pada-system's SE-wind (Anila) is thus the ODD one out against both the dikpala SE-fire and the dikpala NW-wind. Still an edition-apparatus question for 53.43, but the systemic context is now complete. Collation still pending.
Q2★★Merge dev-shikhin into dev-agni?Text-critical & corner-deity clusterbrihat
Strengthened by Step 2 (Anala = Śikhin per 53.71; both are standard Agni names). Still held: the merge should wait for Q1's collation and the Q3 dikpala question, since merging would make "Agni" carry both an NE pada and (traditionally) SE regency — better kept legible as two records with a corresponds-to/alias once Phase 2 confirms. Tombstone procedure per schema §6 when done.
Q4★★Corner-deity comparison across textsText-critical & corner-deity clusterbrihat
Unchanged; now with sharper BS baseline (fire-NE pada vs fire-SE compass) to compare against Mayamata/Manasara.
Q5★★Inner SW deity naming (Indra/Indrajaya)Text-critical & corner-deity clusterbrihat
Unchanged.
Q7★★Site-marma vs body-marmaPrana axisbrihat
Unchanged; rul-salya-divination (53.104–109) now gives the operational side of site-marma detection.
Q10★★Eight house-deities (area mod 8) — PARTIALLY ANSWERED, Step 2Commentary recoveries (garbled — need print pass or second witness)brihat
The per-room verse quoted by Utpala on 53.118 yields candidates: Dhvaja (śrī-gṛha), Dhūpa (kitchen — Bhat asks whether for *dhvāṅkṣa*), Siṁha (sleeping room), Śvan (armoury), Vṛṣa (dining), Kapi? (granary — reading uncertain), Bhadra? (goods-store — uncertain), Rikta (worship room). With Step 1's Rikta(0)/Dhvaja(1) this gives ~8 names, two insecure, and the likely identity of the set with the later aya-series (Dhvaja, Dhūma, Siṁha...) — comparison to ayadi remains SPECULATIVE until a text states it. Asterism table still unrecovered. Utpala's minor-cubit claim also still open.
Q15★★paramashayika / manduka identificationNaming & series identificationbrihat
Unchanged.
Q19★★anila-bhayam at the fire pada (53.72)New in Step 2brihat
The door at Śikhin's (fire-named) NE pada brings *danger from wind* — a wind-effect at a fire pada, while the SE water row (53.119) gives a fire-effect (śikhi-bhayam). Is 53.72's anila-bhayam a deliberate cross-pairing, a pun, or evidence the effect-list was keyed to an older deity order? Check Utpala ad loc. in print; collate with Q1.
Q21★★Bhat's "Peepal" at 53.85 + flora modelingNew in Step 2brihat
The four-fig verse needs its Sanskrit (garbled): Bhat's "Peepal" is presumably *plakṣa* (since Ashvattha is listed separately), but pipal properly = aśvattha — confirm. Larger issue: trees appear as landscape (85–87), remedy-plants (86), and timber (120) — Step 4 (ch. 55, vrikshayurveda) will force a decision on a flora entity type vs mat-/rule-internal handling. Park until then.
Q23★★Direction–time states as tmp- entitiesNew in Step 2brihat
The dipta-watch system is a genuine temporal modifier of directions (a direction's quality changes by watch). Current handling: commentary note inside rul-salya-divination. If Step 5–6 turns up the same system in the Jyotisha chapters, promote to tmp- records with governs/timed-by edges.
Q28★★Bhat's cross-references vs our pinned ch. 53 numberingNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57)brihat
Bhat's note on 56.9 cites "LIII.96-97" for the soil rules (we pinned 95–96), and his note on 56.10 cites "LIII.65" for the site subdivision (we pinned the 64-grid at 53.55–56; 53.65 is the Brahmasthana verse). Either Bhat cross-references loosely or our arithmetic in the unrastered 87–113 stretch is ±1. The visually pinned anchors (71–75, 117–123) are firm. Action: raster printed pp. 486–489 in a maintenance pass and audit 87–116.
Q28★★Source stratigraphy of the temple chapterNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57) · 2026-06-12brihat
BS 56.30 names GARGA as the summarized source and MANU, Vasishtha, Maya, Nagnajit as authorities; Utpala quotes none of them, leaning instead on KASHYAPA. Bhat infers Garga's and Manu's architectural works were lost by the 10th c. [MODERN]. Open: (a) is txt-garga-vastu relatable to any surviving Garga material, or wholly lost? (b) is Utpala's Kashyapa the shilpa-tradition Kashyapa-samhita/Kashyapa-shilpa? (c) keep the divine architect "Vishvakarman" (txt-vishvakarman-vastu, named at 56.28) distinct from the northern TEXT Vishvakarmaprakasha (cnx-0001's claimed kitchen-SE source) — same name, different referents, do not conflate. (d) Maya named here (56.28, 57.8) vs the southern Mayamata (Q15) — relation unknown. These four authority-stubs are the seed of a Phase 2 source-map.
Q29★★Schema gap: "laid out on grid X."New in Step 3 (chs. 56–57)brihat
BS 56.10 (temple site always 64 squares) has no clean relationship type — `measured-by` is for units, `placed-in` for zones-in-directions. Currently held as a man-vastu-64 attribute + rule. Decide in the next schema patch: new type (e.g. `laid-out-on`) vs. widening `measured-by`. Same patch should decide whether `placed-in` may target built-forms (sanctum within temple; water near temple).
Q30★★Schema: representing an intra-rule, two-authority disagreementNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57) · 2026-06-12brihat
cnx-0029 models the Maya-vs-Vishvakarman storey-height split as a self-referential contradicts edge on a single rule that holds both positions. Is that the intended device, or should two attributed sub-positions be split into separate rul- records (or carried only in the rule's school_positions field with no edge)? Same shape will recur often (texts love "A says x, B says y, reconcile by z"). Decide before it proliferates; candidate for a v0.2.2 clarification of §4 contradicts.
Q32★★Utpala's KashyapaNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57)brihat
Utpala's parallel verses for nearly every temple type come from "one Kashyapa" (Bhat). A southern Kāśyapaśilpa exists. If they match, Utpala (10th-c. Kashmir) was reading a southern-lineage shilpa text — significant for school history. Quotes garbled in our OCR; recover in print.
Q33★★Tridosha of trees — a vastu/vrikshayurveda↔ayurveda bridge (later-text)Newbrihat
Bhat cites Chakrapanimishra's Vishvavallabha for trees falling ill through vata/pitta/kapha vitiation (note on 55.14). BS itself names only cold/wind/sun as disease causes. The dosha-of-plants doctrine is therefore later-text, tagged MODERN via txt-vishvavallabha — but it is a real conceptual bridge: if plants and humans share the tridosha, the vrikshayurveda treatments (Vidanga-ghee-silt paste, milk-sprinkling) become a plant-medicine parallel to human chikitsa. Promising Phase 3 thread; collect the actual Vishvavallabha/Surapala passages in Phase 2 before building any corresponds-to edge.
Q34★★The shared 'auspicious-for-establishing' nakshatra setNewbrihat
Well-sinking (54, closing) and tree-planting (55.27) share a core: Rohini, Pushya, the three Uttaras, Hasta, Anuradha (and partly Dhanishtha/Shatabhishaj vs Chitra/Mrigashira/Revati/Mula/Vishakha/Shravana/Ashvini). Is there a general BS muhurta-class of 'fixed/establishing' nakshatras behind both lists (and behind grihapravesha timing)? Check against the muhurta material in Step 5/6. These rules currently name nakshatras as VALUES; Step 5 mints nak- entities and back-links via timed-by edges.
Q38★★Prana-as-time vs prana-as-breath (tmp-prana)New in Step 5 (Jyotisha core: chs. I–II, III–XII, XV, XVI, XIX) · 2026-06-12brihat
BS II makes prana = one breath = the base time-unit; cosmic time is counted in human breaths. Is the identity of this time-prana with the vital/subtle prana ever asserted in a source (making "cosmic time = bodily breath" a doctrine rather than just a convenient unit)? Yoga/tantra texts (svara-yoga, the breath-time correspondence) and possibly Surya-siddhanta cosmology are the places to look. If found, tmp-prana ↔ pra-sharira becomes a CLASSICAL corresponds-to edge; until then it's flagged SPECULATIVE in tmp-prana. A genuinely promising prana-axis lead.
Q39★★The graha-direction mapping — still unpinnedNew in Step 5 (Jyotisha core: chs. I–II, III–XII, XV, XVI, XIX) · 2026-06-12brihat
The Sun-E/Venus-SE/Mars-S/Rahu-SW/Saturn-W/Moon-NW/Mercury-N/Jupiter-NE scheme (dir-agneya graha field, Step 1) was NOT located in chs. I–II, XV, XVI, XIX. XVI gives graha→REGIONS (Sun→eastern, Mars/Saturn→western) — a faint directional tendency, not the clean 8-fold mapping. Next candidates: ch. XIV (Kurma-vibhaga, Step 6) and the hora texts. Until pinned, the graha field on the dir- entities stays TRADITIONAL claimed-classical.
Q40★★Nakshatra deities and lords (deferred)New in Step 5 (Jyotisha core: chs. I–II, III–XII, XV, XVI, XIX) · 2026-06-12brihat
BS XV gives nakshatra RULERSHIP (what each governs) but not the nakshatra ADHIDEVATAS (Krittika=Agni, Rohini=Prajapati...) or planetary lords (Krittika=Sun...). XV gives hints (Krittika→fire-worshippers ~ Agni; Vishakha→Indra+Agni devotees). The standard deity/lord tables come from Taittiriya Brahmana / hora texts — Phase 2. The 27 (+Abhijit) nak- stubs carry index + XV-rulership + varna-class; deity/lord/ayadi_role are DEFERRED placeholders. Several nakshatras have medicine associations worth a Phase-3 look: Ashlesha & Mula govern physicians/medicines, Shatabhishaj = 'hundred healers' by name, Ashvini = the physician-Ashvins.
Q46★★Earthquake causation — stated plurality, unadjudicatedNew in Step 6 (directional/body sweep: chs. XIV, XXXII, LI + Part 1 residue) · 2026-06-12brihat
BS XXXII lists five incompatible causal theories (ocean-animals / quarter-elephants [Garga] / wind-collision [Vasishtha] / karma [Vrddhagarga] / deity-circles [Parashara]) without adjudicating. Captured as a stated plurality (rul-earthquake-causes); reconciliation, if any, is hub work.
Q47★★Earthquake-circle membership differs across sagesNew in Step 6 (directional/body sweep: chs. XIV, XXXII, LI + Part 1 residue) · 2026-06-12brihat
Bhat reports Parashara constitutes the four circles with DIFFERENT asterism memberships than the version BS adopts (e.g. his Wind Circle = Abhijit + Dhanishtha...), and a variant gives Varuna's circle only 6 asterisms (dropping Purvashadha). A cross-text divergence (conflict_axis: school) — logged on rul-earthquake-circles; comparison deferred.
Q49★★Body-as-oracle vs body-as-homologueNew in Step 6 (directional/body sweep: chs. XIV, XXXII, LI + Part 1 residue) · 2026-06-12brihat
LI (Science of Limbs) reads the querent's spontaneous limb-movements as omens ("Time... shows good and bad through physical movements"), structurally akin to 53.59 (the owner's limb-scratching diagnoses the afflicted House-God limb). This BODY-AS-OMEN-MEDIUM theme is distinct from the BODY-AS-COSMOS HOMOLOGY (53.51–59 limbs; 54.2 veins; pra-vastu-purusha-anga ↔ pra-sharira). Whether the tradition treats them as one "body speaks" principle or two is HUB work. Also: LI's chapter authorship is doubted by Utpala (caveat attached to all LI claims).
Q54★★Is the yuga 'decline of true intelligence' a sattva->tamas (guna) decline? (gun-sattva/gun-rajas/gun-tamas)foundationsfrawley
rul-yuga-world-age-cycle states that 'true intelligence' diminishes one quarter per descending age (Golden 100% -> Silver 75% -> Bronze 50% -> Iron 25%), symbolized by the dharma-bull losing a leg each yuga; and rul-ascending-descending-cultures contrasts descending cultures (preserving spiritual light, conservative) with ascending cultures (liberal, materialistic). This is strongly guna-FLAVOURED — true intelligence ~ buddhi/sattva, the descending materialistic age ~ tamas-ward, the active ascending age ~ rajas-ward — and the galactic-center light is said to 'nourish and sustain true intelligence' (book p.56). BUT Frawley frames it as intelligence/dharma, NOT explicitly as a sattva->tamas decline anywhere in pp.19-66. The file therefore deliberately does NOT mint a rul-yuga-world-age-cycle -> gun-tamas edge nor patch the guna stubs from this theme (the guna phenomenology lives in the Planets theme, pp.69-70). At synthesis: does Frawley (or a classical source) ever explicitly identify the yuga decline as a guna decline? If so, mint the guna edges; the gun-sattva/gun-rajas/gun-tamas stubs are the intended endpoints. Until then this stays a flagged non-edge — capture, not synthesis.
Q55★★Frawley's strong sidereal-vs-tropical stance — captured, not adjudicatedfoundationsfrawley
rul-sidereal-vs-tropical-zodiac records Frawley's position (Vedic astrology is sidereal; the sidereal is 'probably the original, observable zodiac' from which the abstract tropical derived; he prefers it and, citing Edgar Cayce, expects it to prevail) alongside the tropical position, via has_internal_divergence/school_positions (divergence_axis: measurement). Per Principle 11 this is a MODERN argument CAPTURED, not adjudicated — no contradicts edge is minted (no downstream edge depends on one position alone; both are coordinate systems 'using different measurements ... the same language'). At synthesis / Phase 2: weigh the sidereal-vs-tropical question against classical jyotisha sources (which are unambiguously sidereal) and Western astronomy, but do NOT let the project assert a winner at extraction time. Note the downstream chain (chart-calc -> galactic orientation) is built on the sidereal pole.
Q56★★Ayanamsha value and epoch-of-coincidence are unsettled (the Revati-marks-0°-Aries dispute)foundationsfrawley
cal-ayanamsha holds, as an ATTRIBUTE-HARVEST, all the competing 1950 values (Lahiri 23°10', Raman 21°42', Sri Yukteswar 21°46', Bhasin 22°03', Fagan-Bradley 24°02'), rates (48"-54"/yr), and epochs of zero-coincidence (Vedic astrologers 200-550 A.D.; Sri Yukteswar 499 A.D./24,000-yr cycle; some Westerners the birth of Christ; astronomy ~25,800-yr/50.3"). The root of the uncertainty: the Vedic star Revati 'said to mark' the first point of Aries is of disputed stellar identity, and the epoch when the vernal equinox was there is hard to fix (nak-revati patch). Frawley prefers Sri Yukteswar's system. This is the SAME uncertainty as the yuga low-point date (rul-yuga-world-age-cycle). At synthesis: which ayanamsha does the project adopt for any computed chart, and does resolving Revati's identity settle both the ayanamsha and the yuga low-point? Numeric tables verified visually (p052.png 1950+rate; p053.png 1900-1990); not adjudicated.
Q91★★Frawley assigns buddhi to Mercury, but Samkhya places buddhi ABOVE manas — hierarchy mismatchpsychologyfrawley
Frawley: Moon = Manas (mind generally / feeling), Mercury = buddhi (judgement). In classical Samkhya/Vedanta the antahkarana hierarchy is buddhi (= mahat, the highest evolute, discriminative intellect) > ahamkara > manas (the lowest, sensory-coordinating mind). Frawley's mapping inverts the usual planetary association (Moon is normally the higher emotional mind, Mercury the lower concrete/rational mind), yet labels Mercury's faculty 'buddhi' — the Samkhya HIGHER term. His separate 'higher vs lower mind' rule (rul-higher-lower-mind-split) calls Mercury's rational process something to be 'raised to a higher level,' implying it starts lower — which fits Mercury-as-lower-mind but conflicts with naming it buddhi. CAPTURE-ONLY: is Frawley using buddhi loosely (= 'intellect/judgement' generically) rather than in the strict Samkhya sense, or does he intend the Samkhya hierarchy? Cross-check against his Foundations/Yoga material before reconciling. Do not resolve here.
Q92★★psychological_significations vs natural_significations: two distinct karaka layers on the grahas — confirm field separationpsychologyfrawley
The Planets theme patched natural_significations (worldly karakatva: father/mother/brothers/wealth/disease, with manas/buddhi mentioned in passing). THIS theme patches a separate psychological_significations field (the planet as a faculty of mind with a higher/lower spiritual reading). They overlap (both note Moon=manas, Mercury=buddhi/discrimination, Ketu=moksha). CONFIRM the schema wants two distinct graha fields (worldly significator vs psychological-faculty significator) rather than one merged significations field. If merged later, the overlap rows (manas, buddhi, moksha-Ketu) must be de-duplicated. I kept them separate to preserve the worldly-vs-psychological axis Frawley himself distinguishes (medical/practical chapters vs this psychology chapter).
Q97★★Akasha (ether) re-enters at the throat — does the Vishuddha reconcile the fifth element the Medical theme omitted?yogic-chakrasfrawley
The standard tantric element of the Vishuddha (throat) is akasha/ether, the prana-bearing element in classical yoga. Frawley's Medical-theme humor scheme omitted akasha entirely (working with a reduced element set). This chapter is exactly where the missing fifth element would re-enter on the subtle body — but Frawley does not draw the link explicitly. Synthesis question: does the throat-chakra=akasha association (and the Ajna/Sahasrara transcending the gross mahabhutas) supply the prana-bearing element absent from the gross/medical scheme, completing the pancabhuta on the subtle axis?
Q98★★Is the navel/fire center (Manipura) the subtle-body correlate of jatharagni / Pitta / Agni-SE across schemes?yogic-chakrasfrawley
Frawley names the Manipura 'the navel or fire center ... a site of solar and fire energy' and makes it where head-solar energy integrates with the vital will (Sun exalted in Aries). This is the only chakra where his name matches the standard tantric element (fire/tejas). It is a strong candidate for the subtle-body correlate of (a) the digestive jatharagni / Pitta seated as digestive fire in the Medical theme and (b) the cosmic Agni-SE of the Brihat Samhita kitchen chain. The cross-scheme identification (cosmic fire-direction / hearth / digestive fire / navel fire-chakra as one Agni principle at four scales) is a synthesis claim, NOT asserted in this chapter — flag for Phase-3 cross-book linking, the project's central body-cosmos fire axis.
Q106★★Which named source-texts are Phase-2 collation priorities, and in what order?backmatterfrawley
The back matter mints 10 source stubs. Priority ranking for Phase-2 collation, by doctrinal load for THIS project (body/prana/Vastu-substrate axis): (1) txt-brihat-parashara-hora (already exists) — the 'main system used', root of graha/bhava doctrine; (2) txt-bhasin-medical-astrology — directly on the planet->body->health axis (Bhasin's *Medical Astrology*); (3) txt-saravali and (4) txt-bhrigu-sutram — classical Hora roots for graha/sign/yoga doctrine that could promote Frawley's TRADITIONAL transmissions to CLASSICAL; (5) txt-yukteswar-holy-science — yuga/precession/ayanamsha cosmology only (peripheral to body-prana). Lower priority / bibliography-only: txt-behari-esoteric-astrology, txt-naiman-astrology-of-healing (western cross-current), txt-bhat-fundamentals-astrology (but note its cross-book value: same M.R. Bhat as Book-1's Brihat Samhita translator). NOT minted but flagged for the Gems theme: G.S. Kapoor's *Gems and Astrology* and N.N. Saha's *Healing Through Gems* — promote to txt- stubs if the Gems/Remedies theme wants citation anchors.
Q107★★Which glossary terms should be promoted to entities, and which require an OPEN schema-type decision first?backmatterfrawley
From the §C glossary residue table. SAFE promotions (map to existing types when a chain needs them): Shadbala/Shadvarga/Varga/Navamsha/Drekkana/Hora/Saptamsha -> cal- (divisional-chart & strength calculations); Ayanamsha -> cal-/tmp- (precession; ties to Yukteswar & Raman ayanamshas in index); Mulatrikona/Exaltation/Debility -> ras-/gra- dignity attributes; Bija-mantra/Mantra/Yantra/Puja/Homa -> act-/rul- (remedial measures; mantra is heavily indexed). The deity<->graha links glossed in the Sanskrit glossary (Durga-Rahu, Rudra-Ketu, Skanda/Kuja-Mars, Lakshmi-Venus, Ganesh-Jupiter, Kali-Saturn) are the graha-adhidevata candidates BS left DEFERRED — promote to dev- entities + governs/corresponds-to edges in the Deity/Spiritual theme. BLOCKED on an OPEN schema-type decision (schema §13 / LIVE STATE): Dasha/Bhukti/Vimshottari (planetary periods), Yoga/Raja-Yoga/Mahapurusha-Yogas (combinations), Drishti (aspect) — do NOT mint unilaterally; raise the dasha/yoga/drishti/mantra type question before promoting any of these.
Q110★★Two overlapping Vedic-corpus text ids (txt-vedas vs txt-rig-veda) — confirm intended relationship, do not mergebackmatterfrawley
The back-matter theme mints txt-vedas ('The Vedas (incl. Rig Veda)', a broad-substrate Sruti stub) because Frawley names 'the Vedas' as his foundational study (Preface, book p.16). The Foundations theme separately minted txt-rig-veda (a specific Samhita) — VERIFIER CONFIRMED txt-rig-veda exists in entities-frawley-astrology-seers-foundations.md. These are two DISTINCT ids (no hard duplicate / re-mint), but they semantically overlap — the Rig Veda is a subset of the Vedas. Per the schema's corresponds-to-not-merge policy, surface this as a relationship (txt-rig-veda is-part-of / corresponds-to txt-vedas) rather than collapsing the ids. Flagged for the orchestrator/synthesis layer to decide the canonical granularity; capture only.
Q113★★★★ Type-discipline: are pra-beneficial-space / pra-detrimental-space (and the sukha/duḥkha pair) Prana/Body entities, a Zone/Rule property, or a new 'space-quality' type?thesissvoboda
Svoboda's core distinction — a space can be BENEFICIAL or DETRIMENTAL to its inhabitant (sukha='good/cooperative space', duḥkha='bad/uncooperative space') — is filed PROVISIONALLY under pra- here, because Svoboda defines both ENTIRELY through prāṇa (beneficial = free prāṇa-circulation; detrimental = obstructed prāṇa) and the schema (§2) offers no 'quality-of-a-space' type. But these are not classical body-concepts: they are a PROPERTY a space/plot/zone bears, which arguably belongs (a) on the Rule axis (they are captured as rul-space-cooperation), (b) on the Zone axis (a recommended/proscribed property), or (c) on the vikṛti-of-space property-axis the ch.3 pilot established (pra-vikriti-of-space). Per the type-discipline brief, no new TYPE was minted unilaterally. SYNTHESIS DECISION NEEDED: keep pra-beneficial-space/pra-detrimental-space as pra- entities (prāṇa-defined), demote them to a property/field on zones (e.g. a beneficial/detrimental boolean+prāṇa-rationale), fold them into pra-vikriti-of-space, or mint a dedicated 'space-quality' type. Note the same question recurs for the ādhibhautika/ādhyātmika/ādhidaivika realms and 'good vs bad Vāstu' generally.
Q114★★★★ Svoboda's unoccupied-centre / well-rooted-space teaching corroborates the BS Brahma-sthāna (zon-brahmasthana) from the prāṇa side — cross-book corroboration, not a mergethesissvoboda
Svoboda (ch.1, PDF pp.034–035) teaches that 'a well-rooted living space needs a stable, ordinarily unoccupied center' — an open centre gives the structure's prāṇa the 'breathing room' to take root; 'obstruct the center, and Prāṇa is obstructed.' Exercise Two (PDF pp.035–036) has the reader clear the middle of a room and feel the prāṇa change. This independently corroborates, from the prāṇa/experiential side, the Bṛhat Saṁhitā Brahma-sthāna doctrine (zon-brahmasthana, BS 53.65 — the centre guarded from defilement/occupation) and the unoccupied-centre rule that recurs across Vāstu. FLAG (per capture-not-synthesize): this is a Svoboda↔BS corroboration across books — surfaced as a question, NEVER asserted as a merge. The full open-centre rule belongs to the Brahma-sthāna theme; here it is captured as a pra-prana patch (prana_stable_and_rooted). Synthesis task: in Phase 3, reconcile Svoboda's prāṇa-rationale for the open centre with BS's deity/defilement rationale and any Mayamata/Mānasāra Brahma-sthāna rule.
Q115★★★★ Svoboda's house-as-skin / 'home is an extension of your body' corroborates the BS House-God↔owner limb-homology (pra-vastu-purusha-anga) from the skin side — cross-book corroboration, not a mergethesissvoboda
Svoboda's supplementary-skin doctrine (ch.1 'Skins', PDF pp.025–027) models the dwelling as an outer layer of the same nested skin-system as the body, 'your home being an extension of your body', with a body↔house resonance ('as you breathe, so will your dwelling'). This corroborates — from the skin/respiration side — the Bṛhat Saṁhitā homology between the House-God (Vāstu Puruṣa) limbs and the owner/structure (pra-vastu-purusha-anga, BS 53.58–59), and is captured both inside cnx-thesis-03 and the pra-sharira patch. FLAG (capture-not-synthesize): this is a Svoboda↔BS cross-book corroboration of the dwelling↔body homology — surfaced, NEVER merged. Svoboda's skin-nesting image is MODERN and rationalizes the homology via prāṇa/respiration; BS's limb-homology is classical and runs through the Vāstu-Puruṣa mandala. Synthesis task (Phase 3): reconcile the two body↔dwelling homology models and decide whether they are one doctrine at two scales or two distinct constructs.
Q118★★Type-decision: the three realms (ādhibhautika / ādhyātmika / ādhidaivika) — NEW type vs pra-/rul-? (NOT present in ch.2; forward-looking)vastu-vidyasvoboda
The task brief expected the three realms of awareness (ādhibhautika = mundane/physical, ādhyātmika = spiritual, ādhidaivika = astral/divine) in this chapter, but they DO NOT APPEAR in pp.039–053 ('The Vāstu Vidyā'); they likely surface in a later chapter. FORWARD-LOOKING type-decision to settle on first real encounter, per the Appendix-B type-discipline (do NOT mint a new TYPE unilaterally): when the triad appears, do the three realms warrant (a) a NEW entity type (a tri-fold 'realm/level-of-existence' class), or (b) three pra- entities (levels of awareness/experience), or (c) one rul- doctrine entity holding the triad? Provisional lean: a single rul- doctrine + three pra- stubs, mirroring how the three guṇas/doṣas are handled — but RAISE as an Open Question at first encounter and decide reactively. Flagged here so the expectation gap is on record and the decision is not forgotten.
Q124★★TRIPLE CONCURRENCE on pitta = Fire + Water (Svoboda + Frawley + BS dir-agneya) — corroboration, not mergeelemental-spacesvoboda
Svoboda (PDF p.065) 'pitta from Fire and Water', Frawley ('pitta also contains water or oil as its base'), and the BS dir-agneya prana-chain (pitta = tejas + ap) all independently give pitta = Fire + Water. This is the strongest cross-book agreement in the substrate and the cleanest prana node (Fire/tejas is the cellular agni of the prana->tejas->ojas chain). Per schema §3.2 concur-rule and §7, cross-source corroboration is SYNTHESIS — recorded here as an open corroboration item, NOT asserted as a status promotion (every source is still single-author Svoboda for THIS book; records stay draft). Surfaced via c03/c04 notes.
Q125★★Gross-humor (vata) <-> subtle-prana gap persists despite shared Air element (Book-1 Q6 follow-up)elemental-spacesvoboda
Svoboda ties BOTH prana and vata to the Air element but keeps them at different substantiality grades: prana = 'the body's most refined representative of the Air Element' (PDF p.081), while vata = a gross humor arising from Air + Space (PDF p.065) that is 'more substantial than prana' (PDF p.065). He does NOT identify the gross wind-humor with subtle prana — the same gross<->subtle gap flagged at Book-1 Q6 and in Frawley. EXTRACTION FLAG: edges c01 (vata->vayu) and c09 (vayu<->prana) share the Air element but the dosha and the vayu are NOT merged; the bridge across the substantiality grades is left untheorized by Svoboda. Closing it is synthesis.
Q126★★Svoboda's akasha<->prana<->awareness identity and his element<->direction map (Fire=SE) vs the BS schemeelemental-spacesvoboda
Svoboda draws, as a MODERN framing, the akasha<->prana link ('Space carries and responds to prana; where prana is, awareness is; Vastu is akasha', PDF pp.074-076) that Frawley's medical theme explicitly did NOT draw — and the cross-vidya element<->direction map 'Fire = Mars (Jyotisa) = pitta/tejas (Ayurveda) = the southeast (Vastu)' (PDF p.069). His Fire=SE CONCURS with BS dir-agneya (cnx-0001, Agni-SE dikpala compass). EXTRACTION FLAG: this is a modern author's correspondence, NOT a located classical verse — tagged MODERN, not CLASSICAL; recorded as corroboration of the BS dir-agneya prana-chain, not a merge. Open: collate Svoboda's full five element<->direction assignments against the BS dikpala compass and pada grid (§8) when the Svoboda directions theme is assembled.
Q129★★Type-decision: how to model the HARA (the body's prAna-hub / center of gravity near the navel)? -- newly introduced in the corpusexpansion-contractionsvoboda
ch. 4 'The Room's Center' (PDF p.103) introduces a concept not previously in the graph: 'the body's prAna centers itself at the nearby hara point, which is, roughly, its center of gravity. PrAna radiates outwards in all directions from the hara, and prAna returns to this hub to refocus.' The hara is the bodily template for the dwelling's center-respiration (it grounds cnx rul-expansion-contraction <-> pra-prana and the zon-brahmasthana center_power_spot patch). Per the orchestrator's TYPE DISCIPLINE and the LIVE-STATE 'do not mint unilaterally' rule, I did NOT mint a pra-hara entity (single passing mention; least-bad home would be pra- as a prAna/body locus, overlapping pra-muladhara/the navel-manipura region). DECISION NEEDED: (a) mint pra-hara as a pra- locus, (b) fold it into an existing navel/manipura entity (pra-manipura?), or (c) leave as residue until a later chapter develops it. Captured in the pra-prana patch body_breath_homologue field; flagged for the type-decision.
Q130★★Is Svoboda's 'room's center / real power spot' the same concept as the canonical Brahma SthAna (zon-brahmasthana)? -- and does his keep-center-open rule corroborate BS rul-protect-brahmasthana?expansion-contractionsvoboda
ch. 4 (PDF pp.103-104): 'the center of any room is its real power spot', which must be kept 'as free of obstruction as possible' for free prAna-flow. NOTE: Svoboda does NOT use the word 'BrahmasthAna' anywhere in this chapter -- he says 'the room's center'. I patched zon-brahmasthana (center_power_spot, keep_open_rule) treating the room-center as its structural analogue, with the identification marked TRADITIONAL-alias-flagged, NOT merged. TWO sub-questions: (1) Is Svoboda's room-center = the canonical BrahmasthAna, or a distinct 'energetic center near the geometric center' that may NOT coincide with the mandala's central nine padas? (2) His keep-center-open rule (rationale: free prAna-flow) CONCURS in practice with BS 53.65 / rul-protect-brahmasthana (rationale: guard from defilement/occupation) and the directions-pilot rul-brahmasthana-symbolizes-sun -- is this genuine cross-book corroboration of the protect-the-center doctrine via two different rationales (ritual purity vs prAna-flow)? Captured as corroboration flags in the patches; resolution deferred (synthesis).
Q135★★Maṇḍūka(pada) spelling/scheme nuance: does 'Maṇḍūka' canonically denote the 8×8 (64) grid, or does the classical series reserve it elsewhere?shapes-mandalasvoboda
Svoboda writes 'Maṇḍūkapada' for the 8×8/64-cell grid (PDF p.136). The classical pada-vinyāsa literature sometimes reserves 'Maṇḍūka' for the 8×8 but uses other names (e.g. Caturaśīti-pada) for adjacent grid-sizes; the count and naming can drift between texts/recensions. Flagged at extraction (cannot be recovered later without re-reading) — resolution deferred to Phase-2 collation of the Mayamata/Mānasāra pada-vinyāsa catalogue. Does NOT block c2 (the 8×8↔BS-64 identity holds regardless of the name).
Q136★★Cross-book corroboration of dev-vastu-purusha: Svoboda's NE-head posture (quoting BS 53:51a), the pinning myth, and the maṇḍala-as-body all concur with Book-1 — corroboration to flag, never a mergeshapes-mandalasvoboda
Svoboda quotes BS 53:51a in Sanskrit ('Pūrvottara din-mūrdhā... śirasi śikhī', head turned to the NE; PDF p.129, his cited p.470) and attributes the bhūta-pinning origin myth and the limb→function homology to the Bṛhat Saṁhitā — all of which Book-1 already holds on dev-vastu-purusha / pra-vastu-purusha-anga from the SAME root text. These are cross-book corroborations of one BS source (Svoboda the conduit, Bhat 1981 the edition); the located 53:51a / 53:67b verses are CLASSICAL via the EXISTING txt-brihat-samhita (verified:false), Svoboda never tagged CLASSICAL. Svoboda's genuinely NEW contributions (the Samkhya overlay; the 'adaptability/squaring' remedy doctrine) are patched, not merged. Synthesis (whether to promote dev-vastu-purusha on the strength of a second witness to the same text) is deferred — one text confirming itself is not corroboration (§7).
Q137★★Q5 follow-up: Svoboda reads the maṇḍala's lines as the Vāstu Puruṣa's OWN nāḍīs and the marmas as prāṇa-confluences — does this coordinate the site-marma with the Ayurvedic body-marma, or just enrich BS's bare geometry?shapes-mandalasvoboda
BS 53.57/53.63 defines marmas purely geometrically (diagonal & line intersections, 1/8-pada size, śalya catalogue) without naming the lines. Svoboda adds a prāṇa-physiology: 'Each of these lines is a nāḍī... Currents of prāṇa meet where the nāḍīs meet, and to build upon one of these junctures is to obstruct those currents' (PDF p.130); the Brahma Nābhi (centre) is the chief marma, homologous to the body's prāṇic navel. This is the strongest prāṇa-enrichment of Book-1's geometric pra-vastu-marma (captured as a patch). It gives BS Q5 (are site-marmas coordinated with Ayurvedic body-marmas?) a data point but does not close it: Svoboda treats the site-lines as the Vāstu Puruṣa's own nāḍīs (a body-OF-THE-SITE reading), not an explicit mapping onto the 107 Suśruta body-marmas. Resolution deferred (synthesis).
Q142★★Mint dir-urdhva and dir-adhas (zenith/nadir) so the Brahma-urdhva and Ananta/Sesa-adhas regency edges can be added?directionssvoboda
Svoboda's ten-direction roster (PDF p.159) adds the vertical pair: Brahma (the Creator) rules ūrdhva (zenith, 'where the planets congregate') and Ananta/Sesa rules adhas (nadir, supporter of the earth, bound down at foundation-laying). The schema models ūrdhva/adhas as Directions (type 2) but NO dir-urdhva / dir-adhas entity exists yet. Per schema §7 an edge may not reference a non-existent ID, so the two regency edges (dev-brahma->dir-urdhva, dev-ananta->dir-adhas) are DEFERRED — not minted in this assembly. dev-ananta is minted as a stub here; dev-brahma already exists. DECISION NEEDED: mint dir-urdhva / dir-adhas stubs, then add the two governs/dikpala edges. Raised per the v0.3 'do not mint unilaterally; flag on first encounter' discipline.
Q143★★dev-vayu (NW dikpala-regent) vs dev-anila (BS SE pada-deity): same wind-tattva, two scheme-slots — do NOT mergedirectionssvoboda
Svoboda's roster names Vayu (Air personified) as the NW regent (PDF p.159), matching the vayavya direction-name. Book 1 deliberately left the NW regent unminted and modeled dev-anila as a SE PADA-deity. dev-vayu is now minted as a stub (the COMPASS regent at NW) and kept DISTINCT from dev-anila (the PADA-deity at SE) per the §8 two-schemes rule. EXTRACTION FLAG: do not merge the two wind-named deities across the compass/pada layers; the identity question (one Vayu in two scheme-slots, or two entities?) is a §8 scheme-comparison item for Phase 2.
Q144★★Relation type for center<->Sun: 'embodies' vs 'corresponds-to' (cnx-B)directionssvoboda
The Brahma Sthana<->Sun bridge (cnx-B) was modeled as zon-brahmasthana -embodies-> gra-surya, on the reading that Svoboda says the center IS the Sun's symbolic presence in the diagram ('symbolizes this Sun', p.144) — i.e. A (the concrete center) is the presence/personification of B (the Sun), matching the schema's 'embodies' direction. An alternative reading is the symmetric 'corresponds-to' (symbolic equivalence across systems). Recorded as embodies; flagged for confirmation. This is the corpus's most direct center<->Sun<->prana hinge, so the relation-type choice is load-bearing.
Q148★★Venus rules the 'fiery' SE yet Svoboda gives Venus = vāta+kapha (no pitta) — 'Venus rules the fiery SE' is a roster placement, NOT a Venus=Fire identityplanets-directionssvoboda
At the SE intercardinal Svoboda's element scheme (ch.6) gives Fire and his graha roster (ch.7) gives Venus 'where lives Fire' (p168) — but Venus is conventionally a water/kapha planet and Svoboda's own doṣa line gives Venus = vāta+kapha with NO pitta (p173). So the SE's Fire/pitta prana weight runs through the DIRECTION (SE=Fire=pitta=jatharagni), not through Venus's own humor. Internal tension captured (per Principle 11), not reconciled: 'Venus rules the fiery SE' is a placement in the roster, not an assertion that Venus IS fire. Recorded on the gra-shukra patch add_note and connection c2.
Q149★★At the graha layer too, Mercury-N + Kubera-N both sit at North — reinforcing Svoboda's Kubera-N dikpāla and DEEPENING (not resolving) the Book-1 Kubera-N vs BS-Soma/Moon-N divergenceplanets-directionssvoboda
Svoboda conflates wealth and commerce at the North via 'the appearance there of both Mercury and Kubera' (p168). The Mercury-N graha placement is internally consistent with Svoboda's own ch.6 Kubera-N dikpāla — but Svoboda's Kubera-N already DIVERGED from BS 54.3's Soma/Moon-N (the cardinal-point scheme-vs-scheme mismatch raised in the directions theme). So the graha layer agrees with Svoboda's OWN North choice and thereby re-exposes, at a second layer, the unresolved Book-1 Soma-vs-Kubera-N dikpāla divergence. This is the graha-layer facet of an already-open dikpāla question (§8), surfaced here, deferred to synthesis.
Q151★★The five-way confluence (direction x element x guna x planet x Vastu-Purusha limb) as a single synthesis - is it Svoboda's, or does any classical text bundle all five?confluencessvoboda
** PRIORITY. rul-directional-confluences captures Svoboda's per-corner equation bundling FIVE domains at once: each intercardinal = a direction + a Great Element + a guna + a planet (or two, at SW) + a limb of the Vastu Purusha, all coinciding (NE = Water+sattva+Jupiter+head; SE = Fire+rajas+Venus+hand; SW = Earth+tamas+Rahu/Ketu+lower-body; NW = Air+rajas+Moon+hand), forming 'the very stance taken by the Vastu Purusha' (PDF p.190). OPEN QUESTION (synthesis-deferred): individual legs have classical homes - the dikpala/element schemes (BS 54.3, section 8), the navagraha-direction roster (claimed-classical jyotisha), the Vastu-Purusha pada->limb homology (BS 53). But does any single classical text COMBINE all five into one corner-equation, or is the five-way bundling Svoboda's MODERN synthesis (the chapter title 'Confluences')? The limb half is especially a coarse 4-fold overlay on BS's fine 9x9 pada->limb grid (pra-vastu-purusha-anga). Defer the reconciliation; the synthesis-status is the question.
Q152★★Within-Svoboda value-shift: SW element committed to EARTH in ch.7 (p.193) vs Space-OR-Earth 'authorities disagree' in ch.6 (p.150)confluencessvoboda
The pilot directions theme recorded SW's element as UNRESOLVED - Space OR Earth, 'authorities disagree', with the center taking 'the other of the two' (rul-element-direction-scheme-svoboda, ch.6 p.150). In THIS confluence section (ch.7 p.193) Svoboda commits flatly: 'Southwest is presided over... by the Earth Element', and uses Earth's stability to justify the SW master-bedroom. By his own SW/center pairing, committing SW=Earth implies center=Space. OPEN QUESTION (capture, do not resolve): is this a genuine within-author resolution (Svoboda settling on Earth-SW / Space-center by ch.7), an inconsistency, or a context-dependent emphasis? Recorded as a school_position on rul-directional-confluences and as a note on the dir-nairrtya confluence patch + connection c9. Defer to synthesis.
Q158★★Merge candidate: zon-shrine-room (Svoboda 'inner sanctum') vs zon-worship-room (BS devagrha) - same NE placement, possibly one zone under two namesorganizing-spacessvoboda
Svoboda's shrine room / meditation nook / 'inner sanctum' (PDF pp.220-221) is placed in the NE corner (or NE quadrant of a room), exactly where BS 53.118's devagrha sits (which Svoboda also quotes). zon-shrine-room is newly minted here as DISTINCT from the existing zon-worship-room because Svoboda's framing (meditation/contemplation, image-in-NE, no-shared-wall-with-bathroom) is richer than the bare BS devagrha, and the names differ. Held distinct pending a Phase-3 merge decision (cf. the neem-cluster precedent: linked by a merge question, not merged). Both carry placed-in -> dir-ishanya (cnx-org-02 worship, cnx-org-03 shrine).
Q159★★Bedroom placement divergence: Svoboda SOUTHWEST (tamasic Earth) vs BS commentary's SOUTH (Kiranakhya via Utpala, rul-room-placement-kiranakhya)organizing-spacessvoboda
Svoboda places the master bedroom in the tamasic SW (Earth's stability; sleep = the quintessential tamasic activity) and forbids NE (kapha-wet) and SE (pitta-heat) (PDF p.214). Book-1's Kiranakhya scheme (via Utpala on 53.118) places the sleeping room in the SOUTH. South vs SW is a genuine placement divergence (cnx-org-06). Dining concurs in the opposite direction: both Svoboda and Kiranakhya put dining in the WEST (cnx-org-07). Captured and flagged; the reconciliation/weighting is Phase-3 synthesis.
Q160★★Svoboda's sula ('pranic spear', suspended/pointed) vs BS's salya (buried thorn at a site-marma): same vulnerability-class or two distinct doctrines?organizing-spacessvoboda
Svoboda's sula (PDF pp.216-217) is a SUSPENDED or sharply POINTED object/surface (hanging light over a bed, model planes, an acute wall angle) that 'pierces' the prana of whatever it points at - 'body, prana and mind alike perceive pointy things as weapons.' BS's pra-vastu-marma salya catalog (53.60-62) is about a thorn BURIED at a ground-marma afflicting the owner's corresponding limb. Overhead/pointed spear vs subterranean thorn = different mechanism, shared marma/vulnerable-point intuition. New pra-shula minted + patch to pra-vastu-marma; whether the two are one point-class is the flagged question, not asserted. Phase-3 (and Ayurveda body-marma coordination).
Q164★★Peepal/pīpal English-name tangle: BS-Bhat's N-tree 'Peepal (likely plakṣa)' vs Svoboda's peepal = Aśvattha = Ficus religiosa = Wgardensvoboda
Svoboda fixes peepal/pīpal = Aśvattha = Ficus religiosa, assigned to the WEST. BS 53.85 (Bhat translation) renders the NORTH-tree as 'Peepal (likely plakṣa)'. The same English common name 'peepal' is thus attached to two different species/directions across the two sources (Svoboda: Aśvattha/Ficus religiosa/W; Bhat-on-BS: a N-tree glossed plakṣa). A possible English-common-name clash that only Sanskrit collation of BS 53.85 can resolve. EXTRACTION FLAG only: flo-ashvattha and flo-plaksha both carry see_also to rul-fig-trees-by-direction and note the tangle; reconciliation is Phase-2 synthesis.
Q170★★Svoboda's graha↔direction↔doṣa CLIMATE roster (Mars-S/pitta, Saturn-W/vāta, Jupiter-NE/kapha, Moon-NW/kapha-vāta) — concurs with Frawley graha-doṣa, overlaps the graha-direction rosterconstructionsvoboda
Svoboda's climate-by-constitution rule (PDF p.252) asserts Mars(pitta)=south, Saturn(vāta)=west, Jupiter(kapha)=northeast, Moon(kapha-vāta)=northwest. The graha↔DOṢA half (Mars-pitta, Saturn-vāta, Jupiter-kapha) CONCURS with Frawley's gra-* dosha_affinity patches (triple-concurrence for Mars-pitta with ch.3 + BS dir-agneya). The graha↔DIRECTION half overlaps the standard jyotiṣa graha-direction roster (elsewhere flagged TRADITIONAL/claimed-classical on dir-agneya). Connections cnx-B..G minted; dir- patches applied (climate_graha_dosha). ⚑ Possible DUPLICATE edges with existing Frawley Mars↔pitta / Saturn↔vāta / Jupiter↔kapha correspondence edges — flag for synthesis-layer dedup, do not assert merge. Also note the §8 layering: Svoboda's Moon-NW graha layer differs from his own ch.6 Vāyu-NW dikpāla layer — keep the scheme-slots distinct.
Q171★★Scope mismatch: ch.10 'Building from the Ground Up' is SITE-SELECTION, not foundations/materials/doors/basement/facade — where are those in Svoboda?constructionsvoboda
The theme brief anticipated foundations, materials, doors/entrances, basements, facade, and the build sequence. The actual ch.10 (PDF pp.243–271) covers only the PRE-construction half: need, architect, and (mostly) land investigation/selection — ending at 'Groundbreaking and first entrance' WITHOUT reaching it. No new mat- material, no frm- door/foundation typology appears (only the vīthi-śūla site-defect, minted). So Svoboda's actual treatment of doors/entrances, basements, facade, materials-as-substances, and foundation-laying lives in OTHER chapters not in this span. ACTION for the orchestrator: confirm which later Svoboda chapter(s) carry foundations/doors/materials/facade so the BS 56–57 material/door overlap patching the brief expected can be done there. The expected BS-56/57 vs Svoboda materials/doors concur/diverge comparison COULD NOT be performed here because Svoboda introduces no materials/doors in pp.243–271.
Q174★★Type-discipline: deity-installation & construction rites as act-, vs a new 'ritual/practice' type? (Appendix B flag)ordering-applicationsvoboda
Ch.11 introduces several consecration/installation PRACTICES: murti-sthapana (deity-image installation as a home safeguard), Vastu-puja/Bhumi-puja (groundbreaking), garbha-nyasa (Nine-Planet casket deposit), and the embedded 'binding down Sesha' peg-rite. I provisionally fit ALL of these to the existing act- prefix (the least-bad home, following the existing act-grihapravesha precedent from Book 1). But act-'s field-set (physiological_aspect, typical_zone) is body-activity-shaped and fits these consecration rites awkwardly (their 'physiological_aspect' is really a relational/energetic/intentional aspect, which I noted in each record). The garbha-nyasa->griha-pravesha edge (C6) compounds this: §4 has no 'component-of' relation, so an optional sub-rite-within-a-rite is forced onto prerequisite-of. QUESTION: do installation/consecration RITES warrant their own entity type (e.g. 'rite-' or 'practice-'), distinct from human bodily Activities (cooking, sleeping), and does §4 need a component/part-of relation? This recurs across the corpus (BS construction omens & rites; Phase-2 manuals' pratistha/installation chapters). Per the type-discipline instruction I do NOT mint a new type unilaterally and flag it here. Decision needed before Phase-2 installation chapters arrive.
Q176★★DIVERGENCE WITHIN SVOBODA: two different door-direction-purushartha sayings (ch.11 p.284 vs ch.6 p.148)ordering-applicationsvoboda
rul-door-direction-purusharthas now records TWO sayings from Svoboda that DISAGREE. Ch.6 'Traditional Vastu saying' (already on the rule): E=sukha/dharma, N=ARTHA, W=KAMA, S=moksha. Ch.11 (Sthapati's 'Some Glimpses...', p.284, added as a competing school_position): E=happiness, W=MATERIAL PROSPERITY (pusti-vardhanam), N=WEALTH, S=moksha. They agree only on S=moksha; they DIFFER on West (kama vs material prosperity) and North (artha vs wealth), and arguably swap the artha/material-prosperity domain between N and W. NOT reconciled (Principle 11). Question: are these two genuinely distinct schools/recensions of the saying, or loose paraphrases of one doctrine? The ch.11 saying source-text (Sthapati) is verified verbatim on p.284 / footnote p.296. Resolve in Phase 2/3 with the Sthapati source and the underlying Sanskrit verses in hand. (The rule should carry has_internal_divergence: true / divergence_axis: school, per §4.1 — confirm it is so flagged.)
Q177★★BS cross-quote: central-door-as-sula 'wounds' the Brahma Sthana (Svoboda p.284) overlaps Book-1 BS dvara-vedha / protect-brahmasthanaordering-applicationsvoboda
On p.284 Svoboda ATTRIBUTES to Brihat Samhita the claim that a residence's central main door 'acts as a sula and wounds the Brahma Sthana by piercing it', but pins NO chapter:verse. Per the §1 modern-author rule this is TRADITIONAL (claimed-classical: txt-brihat-samhita), NOT CLASSICAL: a modern author naming a text without a located verse is claimed-classical, never a root-text citation. I patched zon-brahmasthana with this as TRADITIONAL/claimed-classical to txt-brihat-samhita (verified:false; Svoboda gives no chapter/verse) and minted the disturbs connection frm-dvara->zon-brahmasthana (TRADITIONAL, C4). Book-1 already holds BS door-piercing/center-protection material (rul-dvara-vedha, rul-protect-brahmasthana, frm-dvara). QUESTION: is this the SAME BS doctrine Book-1 captured (cross-book corroboration of one root passage from two readers), and if so which BS verse? A located BS verse in Phase-2 would upgrade the patch/edge to CLASSICAL. Flagged for Phase-2 collation; do NOT merge the Svoboda-conduit citation into Book-1's BS entities (per the layered-sources rule).
Q8★Brahmasthana = heart inferencePrana axisbrihat
Unchanged; cnx-0020 (door facing Brahman → family extinction) added as adjacent material, same SPECULATIVE discipline.
Q9★Material categories (Hiranyagarbha's eight, Maya's five)Commentary recoveries (garbled — need print pass or second witness)brihat
Unchanged.
Q11★Print discrepancy at 53.4 (115/116)Commentary recoveries (garbled — need print pass or second witness)brihat
Unchanged.
Q12★Chamberlain oddity (53.8)Commentary recoveries (garbled — need print pass or second witness)brihat
Unchanged.
Q13★Utpala's own architecture treatise (title garbled)Commentary recoveries (garbled — need print pass or second witness)brihat
Unchanged.
Q14★The 13th-c. "celestial tree" sourceCommentary recoveries (garbled — need print pass or second witness)brihat
Unchanged.
Q16★Name variants (Brihatkshata/Grihakshata; Kusumadanta/Pushpadanta)Naming & series identificationbrihat
Unchanged.
Q18★Soma vs Kubera in the northNaming & series identificationbrihat
Unchanged; note 53.118 gives no north name (the four names cover the corners only).
Q20★śrī-gṛha sense (Kiranakhya scheme, east zone)New in Step 2brihat
Lakshmi shrine or treasure-house? Affects zon-shri-griha's function field and a possible merge with zon-treasury-granary.
Q22★Utpala's dipta-watch system reconciliationsNew in Step 2brihat
The Angarini/Dipta/Dhumita/Shanta rotation (on 53.104) — check whether other texts (Agama quoted by Utpala) agree on the sunrise starting set NE/E/SE and the clockwise watch-shift.
Q24★Indra's Banner effect-tables (43.13–20, 62–66)New in Step 2brihat
Twice cross-referenced by ch. 53 (felling rite; pillar/door omens). Mark for promotion during the Step 6 residue skim if any chain needs the actual effects.
Q25★Corner-spirit identitiesNew in Step 2brihat
Charaki, Vidari, Putana, Rakshasi (53.83–84) — Putana and Charaki recur in Ayurvedic graha-doctrine (child-afflicting spirits; Sushruta Uttara) — if confirmed in Phase 2, that is a direct vastu–ayurveda spirit link at the house corners. Flag as promising.
Q26★Garbled commentary recoveries, Step 2 batchNew in Step 2brihat
(a) Shanku-peg installation rules quoted under 53.112–113; (b) Hiranyagarbha's deities external to the 45 (under 53.125); (c) the Agama quote on dipta quarters (under 53.104). Recover in a print pass.
Q27★Floor-level tension (53.115 vs 116–117)New in Step 2brihat
Raised E/N: loss of wealth and children (115), yet E/N are the least serious fault directions (116–117). Bhat reconciles by severity [MODERN]. Check Utpala in print; candidate contradicts edge (axis: text) if the reconciliation fails.
Q29★Vajralepa ingredient Sanskrit + identificationsNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57) · 2026-06-12brihat
Botanical/mineral IDs in ch. 57 are Bhat's English glosses [MODERN]; the Devanagari is garbled in our OCR. Recover Sanskrit names and verify especially: 'myrrh' (mat-gandhabiroja-myrrh), generic 'resin' (mat-sarja-resin), 'iron-rust', Naga-fruit vs nagakesara, and Madhuka (Bhat's Cynometra vs the usual Madhuca). MANY ingredients are core Ayurvedic materia medica (Guggulu, Bhallataka, Manjishtha, Amalaka, Vaca, Bilva, Madana) — a genuine vastu↔ayurveda materials bridge for Phase 3, but the link is shared-substance, not stated doctrine; tag honestly when built.
Q30★Suspect widths in the temple tableNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57)brihat
Vimanacchanda 21 hasta breaks the descending pattern (32, 30, 28, ...26?); Nandana 32 duplicates Meru. Both as printed; collate Sanskrit/Kern in Phase 2.
Q31★Temple body-homology (garbha = womb)New in Step 3 (chs. 56–57) · 2026-06-12brihat
The sanctum is garbha, 'womb'; the prasada is body-proportioned (height 2× width, etc.) and grid-borne like the Vastu Purusha. BS 56 gives geometry only — no somatic gloss. Strong Phase 3 reasoning target (temple-as-body parallel to dwelling-as-body), to be built from comparative texts, not asserted from BS.
Q32★Sarvatobhadra(ka) name reuseNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57) · 2026-06-12brihat
The temple type frm-prasada-sarvatobhadraka (56.27, square, 4 doors) and the catuhshala house frm-sarvatobhadra (53.31, 4 doors all round) share the 'good-on-all-sides, four-door' principle across scales. Likely a single design idea applied to house and temple; confirm whether the tradition treats them as one concept when the southern manuals are read. ---
Q33★The second dvarapala's name (56.14)New in Step 3 (chs. 56–57)brihat
Bhat prints "Nandin and Dagda(?)" — almost certainly Caṇḍa or Mahākāla; recover from print.
Q34★Vajralepa ingredient identificationsNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57)brihat
Bhat's botanical equations are MODERN and two items are garbled (the 'myrrh' item; shrivasaka's gloss). Ingredient species deliberately not minted as entities (header decision); revisit when ch. 55 (Step 4) builds the flora policy (Q21) — the glue lists would then convert mechanically.
Q35★The dark temples' west-gate/east-door circuitNew in Step 3 (chs. 56–57)brihat
Utpala's construction for Vritta/Chatushkona/Shodashashri/Ashtashri (enter west, circumambulate north, enter east; gem idol self-illumines) is a unique ritual-architecture datum. Check against southern texts in Phase 2; possible timed-by/circumambulation modeling later.
Q35★Indicator-catalog promotion debtNewbrihat
rul-water-indicators-by-tree captures ~8 representative rows of the 54.6–96 tree/ant-hill/strata catalog in full, and marks the remaining ~40 rows `promote?` rather than transcribing them this pass (DEPTH JUDGMENT: the catalog is structurally uniform {indicator→dir/depth/strata}; full transcription is high-effort, low-marginal-value until a Phase 3 chain needs a specific indicator). Promote on demand. Flag: confirm this compression is acceptable for the water chapter, or request a full transcription pass.
Q36★Stone/rock water-signs vs the salya colour-omensNewbrihat
ch. 54's rock-colour→water-yield signs (54.103–109) and ch. 53's core-colour→contents signs for felled timber (53.122–123) are parallel 'read the hidden by its surface colour' divinations. Possible shared epistemics; minor, park for Phase 3.
Q41★Sevenfold society (XV.28–29)New in Step 5 (Jyotisha core: chs. I–II, III–XII, XV, XVI, XIX) · 2026-06-12brihat
VM's class scheme is SEVENfold (4 varnas + husbandmen + cruel-class + outcastes), not the fourfold varna of the Vastu chapters (53.70 etc.). Reconcile the two social taxonomies when comparing the directional varna-quarters (Vastu) with the asterism varna-rulership (Jyotisha); they may not be the same partition.
Q42★Same-name disambiguation: SomaNew in Step 5 (Jyotisha core: chs. I–II, III–XII, XV, XVI, XIX) · 2026-06-12brihat
Three distinct 'Soma' referents now in the graph: gra-chandra (the Moon graha, aliased Soma), dev-soma (north dikpala AND north-middle pada-deity, Steps 1/4). All kept separate per §8; confirm the southern texts don't collapse them.
Q43★Graha natural-colours residueNew in Step 5 (Jyotisha core: chs. I–II, III–XII, XV, XVI, XIX) · 2026-06-12brihat
Captured from favorable-appearance cara verses: Sun=golden (I), Mars=red/coppery (VI), Mercury=golden/green (VII). promote? — Moon/Jupiter/Venus/Saturn natural colours are harvestable from the corresponding cara chapters' favorable-appearance verses (IV, VIII, IX, X) if a Phase-3 colour/element thread needs them; not extracted this pass.
Q44★Garga identity (extends Q28)New in Step 5 (Jyotisha core: chs. I–II, III–XII, XV, XVI, XIX) · 2026-06-12brihat
Garga is cited as a source for BOTH the architecture chapter (56.30, txt-garga-vastu) AND the jyotisha framing (BS I, via Utpala) AND tree-planting asterisms (55.27). Is this one Garga (a single lost compendium spanning vastu+jyotisha+vrikshayurveda) or homonymous authorities? Bears on how the source-map is drawn in Phase 2. ---
Q50★Recurring 'heart-pleasing place' criterionNew in Step 6 (directional/body sweep: chs. XIV, XXXII, LI + Part 1 residue) · 2026-06-12brihat
The auspicious-place test "pleases the heart / sweet water / good trees" recurs at 53.87, 53.91–94 (heart-joy), 56.1–8 (temple siting), and LI.2. Captured as a recurring motif across the Vastu and divination blocks; whether it is one doctrine is hub synthesis. (Candidate prana-adjacent thread — the felt response of the body to a place — but NOT forced; the texts give no mechanism.)
Q51★Garga ≠ Vrddhagarga (captured datum)New in Step 6 (directional/body sweep: chs. XIV, XXXII, LI + Part 1 residue) · 2026-06-12brihat
Utpala (on XXXII) states Garga and Vrddhagarga are distinct persons. This refines but does not close Q44 (whether the architecture-Garga = jyotisha-Garga = vrikshayurveda-Garga). The Vrddhagarga vs Garga distinction is now a fixed datum for the Phase-2 source-map.
Q52★Residue promotion prioritiesNew in Step 6 (directional/body sweep: chs. XIV, XXXII, LI + Part 1 residue) · 2026-06-12brihat
From residue-brihat-samhita-part1.md, two `promote!` items: ch. XLIII (Indra's Banner — holds the effect-table cross-referenced by 53.114, and tree-felling rites paralleling 53.121) and ch. LII (body-mark/mole divination, companion to LI). Promote these first if a Vastu or body chain needs them. Part 2 (iconography, gems, perfumery) is an untouched residue pass for when Part 2 is in hand.
Q53★Frawley's breath<->time<->Sun doctrine is a SECOND WITNESS to Book-1 Q38 (prana-as-time vs prana-as-breath) — does it settle it?foundationsfrawley
Book-1 Q38 asks whether the identity of the jyotisha time-prana (BS II: prana = one breath = the base time-unit, cosmic time counted in human breaths, tmp-prana) with the vital/bodily prana is ever ASSERTED as doctrine rather than used as a convenient unit. Frawley supplies a strong second witness: his 'science of time' quotes Maitri (Maitrayaniya) Upanishad VI.1 verbatim (book p.38) — 'The Self carries himself twofold, as the life-force (Prana) and as the Sun ... by the movement of the outer Self [Sun] the movement of the inner Self [Prana/breath] is measured; but for the Knower ... by the movement of the inner Self the movement of the outer Self is measured' — a DOCTRINAL, reciprocal breath<->Sun (inner<->outer Self) identity, plus the claim that the seers used the Sun's movement to understand the breath (basis of Yoga) and vice-versa. This is STRONGER than tmp-prana's bare time-unit use. NOT merged and NOT resolved here (Principle 11): pra-time-as-divine-breath is minted distinct and cross-referenced to tmp-prana (edge fr-fnd-time-breath-tmpprana). At synthesis: does Maitri VI.1 (a located root verse, verified:false) settle Q38 affirmatively — i.e. is the time-prana = the vital prana a real Upanishadic doctrine? Collate Maitri VI.1 directly, and check svara-yoga / Surya-siddhanta as Q38 already flags.
Q79★★★★ DASHA type-decision: does Vimshottari (planetary periods) warrant its own entity type, or remain folded under tmp- (Temporal Factor)?aspects-harmonics-periodsfrawley
LOAD-BEARING. This theme mints tmp-vimshottari-dasha as a Temporal Factor (type 16) — the least-bad existing fit, since a dasha is a graha-keyed time-division of a 120-year life-cycle. But a dasha is unlike the other tmp- entities (tithi/vara/muhurta/masa are cyclic calendar units; a dasha is a one-shot life-mapping derived from the natal Moon's nakshatra, with nested Maha/Bhukti/Antar/Sukshma levels, predictive interpretation, and even post-mortem extension). Schema App. B.13 explicitly defers this ('do dasha, yoga, drishti, mantra each warrant their own type, or map to existing types? Deferred to reactive decision during extraction — flag as an Open Question, do not mint unilaterally'). This is the HEAVIEST of the three type-decisions because the dasha system anchors all of Frawley's predictive ch.6 and recurs across Books 2-3. DECISION NEEDED: (a) keep tmp-, (b) mint a new type das-, or (c) a broader 'predictive-system' type covering dashas + transits + returns. Until decided, tmp-vimshottari-dasha stays tmp- and status:draft. Sub-note: the 9 dasha-lord lengths are modeled as a structured field on the entity, NOT as 9 separate entities; confirm.
Q80★★★★ DRISHTI (special aspect) type-decision: own type, a rule, or a NEW relation type alongside the 15 in §4?aspects-harmonics-periodsfrawley
LOAD-BEARING. Vedic special aspects (Mars 4/8, Jupiter-Rahu-Ketu 5/9, Saturn 3/10, all-planets 7th) are a planet→sign/house influence-geometry. Captured THREE ways pending the decision: (1) a per-graha 'special_aspects' field-fill PATCH (makes each planet queryable), (2) one rule entity rul-special-aspects holding the full table + the Western-comparison divergence, and (3) provisional connections (cnx-aspects-1..5) from each special-aspect planet to the rule. None is clearly correct. A drishti is most naturally a RELATION (planet --aspects--> sign/house), i.e. a 16th relation type in §4 — but minting a relation type is a schema change not to be made unilaterally (App. B.13). VERIFIER NOTE: the extractor originally used 'governs' for cnx-aspects-1..5; this was corrected to 'influences' (the §4 residual type) because 'governs' is lordship and 'influences' is the only honest existing fit for a planet→rule membership edge — this is an interim label, NOT an endorsement of 'influences' as the right model. DECISION NEEDED: (a) keep rul-special-aspects + field-fill + influences edges (current), (b) add an 'aspects'/'drishti' relation type to §4 (then cnx-aspects-1..5 convert to planet--aspects-->sign/house and the per-graha field stays as the queryable summary), or (c) a dedicated drishti entity type. Note §4 'influences' is generic and 'governs' is wrong (an aspect is not lordship).
Q81★★★★ YOGA (planetary combination) type-decision: own type, or rul-?aspects-harmonics-periodsfrawley
LOAD-BEARING. Yogas (Pancha-Mahapurusha, Kuja Dosha, Keshari/Lunar, Raja, Dhana/poverty) are the core of Vedic predictive interpretation; Frawley calls them 'often more important than aspects'. Captured TWO representatives as rule entities — rul-mahapurusha-yogas (the 5 Mahapurushas in one entity) and rul-kuja-dosha — and sent the rest to residue. A yoga is rule-like (a normative combination→effect statement), so rul- is defensible, but yogas form a large, named, structured family (hundreds in the classical catalogs) that may deserve their own type with fields like {constituent_planets, formation_condition, cancellation/exceptions, effect, strength_modifiers}. VERIFIER NOTE: cnx-mars-kuja (gra-mangala → rul-kuja-dosha) was also corrected 'governs' → 'influences' for the same lordship reason; if a yoga type or 'constitutes' relation is minted, that edge should convert. DECISION NEEDED: (a) keep yogas as rul- (current), or (b) mint a yog- type (rul-mahapurusha-yogas + rul-kuja-dosha convert). Sub-decision: rul-mahapurusha-yogas bundles all five Mahapurushas; split-per-planet if wanted. Until decided they stay rul- and status:draft.
Q82★Missing Vimshottari nakshatra→starting-dasha-lord table (Frawley's 'table on p.133') is OUT of this theme's page range — only 1 of 27 rows capturedaspects-harmonics-periodsfrawley
The full 27-nakshatra → starting-Maha-Dasha-lord mapping that Vimshottari depends on is referenced by Frawley as 'see table on p.133' (PDF p.128), OUTSIDE this theme's assigned pages (PDF 162-203). I therefore did NOT mint 27 nak→dasha edges; I captured only the MECHANISM (start-lord = lord of the Moon's natal nakshatra; remaining fraction = min-left/800 × lord-years) and the ONE worked row given inline (Moon in Hasta → Moon dasha, cnx-dasha-hasta-moon). ACTION: the Signs/Nakshatra theme, or a dedicated p.133 pass, should harvest the full graha→nakshatra rulership table. This table would also FILL the BS-core nakshatra entities' DEFERRED 'ruling_graha' field (the nak- stubs in entities-brihat-samhita-jyotisha-core.md left ruling_graha unstated) — a high-value patch source for all 27 nak- entities. I did NOT assert the standard mapping (Ketu-Ashvini, Venus-Bharani, Sun-Krittika, ...) from memory; it must be read from p.133. This missing table is also why cnx-dasha-order targets the varna-rulership entity (the only existing nakshatra-rulership rule) instead of a proper nakshatra-graha-rulership rule.
Q90★Manas and buddhi: model as pra- entities or as graha psychological_significations fields?psychologyfrawley
Frawley names Manas (Moon, book p.226) and buddhi (Mercury, book p.227) as the faculties the planets 'represent.' Per the theme brief I minted pra-manas and pra-buddhi as stubs AND wrote the same datum into each graha's psychological_significations field, with corresponds-to edges (gra-chandra↔pra-manas, gra-budha↔pra-buddhi). This is deliberate redundancy so the schema owner can collapse the entities to fields (or vice versa) without data loss. DECISION NEEDED: (a) keep pra-manas/pra-buddhi as first-class Prana/Body entities (and likely extend to the full antahkarana: ahamkara, citta) when later Frawley/Svoboda material develops them; or (b) demote them to pure graha fields and retire the stubs+edges. Frawley does NOT lay out the antahkarana hierarchy here — he gives only the two one-line equations — so the entity case is currently thin (single-line, single-source). Recommend deferring until a chapter actually develops the inner-instrument doctrine; flagged now so the stubs aren't silently promoted.
Q96★Frawley's chakra element-rulership 'differs from the usual order' — keep his subtle scheme separate from the Medical theme's gross humor element scheme?yogic-chakrasfrawley
Frawley's closing NOTE (book p.234) states his chakra correspondences 'differ slightly from the usual order, particularly in regard to rulership of the elements ... because it is working on a more subtle level.' He does NOT tabulate a chakra-by-chakra element table in this chapter, so the chakra-element edges in this assembly carry the STANDARD tantric mahabhuta series (Muladhara=earth, Svadhishthana=water, Manipura=fire, Anahata=air, Vishuddha=ether), tagged TRADITIONAL, explicitly NOT sourced to his chapter. Resolve in synthesis: (a) what IS Frawley's own (divergent) chakra-element scheme — is it stated elsewhere in the book? (b) Should the standard tantric series and Frawley's gross Air/Fire/Water humor scheme (Medical theme) be kept as two layers (gross vs subtle element ordering) and never silently merged? The divergence is itself prana-relevant data. Captured in rul-chakra-element-rulership-differs (has_internal_divergence: true, divergence_axis: school).
Q108★Frawley's Apachaya/Upachaya house-class assignments differ from standard usage — verify against bha- class vocabbackmatterfrawley
Frawley's Sanskrit glossary glosses 'Apachaya = houses 1, 2, 4, 7, 8' (book p.324) and 'Upachaya = houses 3, 6, 10 & 11' (book p.326). VERIFIER CONFIRMED both glosses against the OCR (Apachaya at PDF p319=book p.324; Upachaya at PDF p321=book p.326). The schema's bha_class upachaya is defined as {3, 6, 10, 11} (matches Frawley's Upachaya). But Frawley's 'Apachaya = 1,2,4,7,8' is non-standard (apachaya is usually the complement of upachaya). His Kendra=Angular(1,4,7,10), Trikona=Trine(1,5,9), Panapara=Succedent, Apoklima=Cadent, Dushtana=6,8,12 are otherwise standard. FLAG: when the Houses theme writes bha_class, reconcile Frawley's Apachaya={1,2,4,7,8} with the standard scheme — capture, do not silently normalize. This is a divergence-in-vocabulary to surface, not resolve. (NB: the extractor's residue table cited 'book pp.319,321' for these — those are PDF page indices, not book pages; correct book pages are 324 and 326.)
Q109★Book-2 leaves the BS-deferred nakshatra ruling_graha/deity fields STILL deferred — confirm and re-flagbackmatterfrawley
The Sanskrit Glossary defines 'Nakshatras = 27 lunar constellations/asterisms' (book p.325) but supplies NO per-nakshatra ruling_graha or deity. Frawley's Preface explicitly states the Nakshatras are 'too complicated to give in the present volume' (book p.18) and routes that detail to his Vedic Astrology Correspondence Course. Therefore Book 2 does NOT fill the nak- ruling_graha/deity fields that Book 1 (entities-brihat-samhita-jyotisha-core) left DEFERRED. Those fields remain open — flagged so the deferral is not mistaken for an omission. Likely filled only by a dedicated nakshatra source (Phase 2) or Frawley's Course.
Q116★★ Cross-book/cross-theme overlap: Svoboda's prosperity-prāṇa plot-shapes (Cow/Tiger) and the West-neglects-space-vs-time thesisthesissvoboda
TWO lighter cross-book/cross-theme flags raised here but DEFERRED. (1) The Cow-mouthed (Go-mukhī, frm-gomukhi) / Tiger-mouthed (Vyāghra-mukhī, frm-vyaghramukhi) plot-typology (ch.1, PDF pp.011–013, 037–038) is minted here only as STUBS — the worked example that opens the thesis chapter, where plot-shape regulates 'prosperity-prāṇa' flow (the narrow 'mouth' retains fickle prosperity, the wide mouth admits much but retains little). The full defining geometry, ayadi, and effects belong to the ch.5 shapes-mandala theme (frm-gomukhi/frm-vyaghramukhi to be ENRICHED there); flagged so the shapes theme picks them up and so the prosperity-prāṇa→bodily-prāṇa step is traced (or left 'not yet traced') later. (2) Svoboda's recurring West-neglects-space-vs-time thesis ('Indians pay lots of attention to time... but too few people in India, and almost none in the West, think about space', PDF p.013, reinforced pp.018–019) is held in residue as a `promote? MAYBE` — a candidate framing rul- or note if a later 'space vs time / Jyotiṣa vs Vāstu' synthesis chain needs it; not minted as an entity in this theme.
Q117★Cross-book corroboration: Svoboda's BS 53:95b quote ('gladdens his heart') vs Book-1's BS ch.53 extraction — is 53.95b a gap in Book 1?vastu-vidyasvoboda
Svoboda quotes-and-locates Bṛhat Saṁhitā 53:95b (Bhat p.486): 'Tat tasya bhavati śubhadaṁ yasya ca yasmin mano ramate' — 'Any site becomes auspicious for a person, provided that it gladdens his heart' (PDF p.052), the heart-over-calculation conclusion to the BS site-selection chapter. Book 1 extracted BS 53.95–96 but as the SOIL-traits-by-varna rule (rul-soil-traits-by-varna, the 'four trait-quadruples'); 53.95b (the SECOND hemistich, the 'gladdens his heart' clause) appears to be DIFFERENT content not captured there. EXTRACTION-TIME FLAG only (CAPTURE, do not resolve): (a) confirm whether Book-1's ch.53b file already carries 53.95b's intuition-over-calculation content or whether it is a genuine gap; (b) this is a CLASSICAL verse Svoboda transmits about the SAME root text Book 1 owns — recorded as a §3.2 patch on txt-brihat-samhita (verified:false), NOT merged into Book-1 BS entities. Phase-2 Sanskrit collation target. Do NOT reconcile now.
Q122★Same dos- entities now carry two different bearers: dosha-of-PLANET (Frawley) vs dosha-of-SPACE (Svoboda) — reconcile or layer?elemental-spacesvoboda
Book 2 (Frawley) attached vata/pitta/kapha to GRAHAS (planets as dosha-bearers, e.g. Sun/Mars = pitta). Svoboda (Book 3) attaches the SAME dos-vata/dos-pitta/dos-kapha to SPACES/dwellings (a dry space = vata, a hot space = pitta, a humid space = kapha; PDF pp.058-062). The single dos- entity now patches in two distinct 'bearer' contexts (a planet vs a built space). EXTRACTION FLAG only: surface both bearers side-by-side on the rendered dosha page (per §3.2 diverge/layer rule); do NOT collapse. Open: is 'bearer-of-dosha' a field worth modeling (planet | space | body | food), or do the space_manifestation / dosha_affinity patches plus the rul-dosha-of-space rule already capture it? Deferred to synthesis.
Q123★Svoboda's 5-element dosha composition DIVERGES from Frawley's 3/4-element scheme (vata = Air+Space; kapha = Water+Earth)elemental-spacesvoboda
Svoboda (PDF p.065): vata = Air + Space (akasha), pitta = Fire + Water, kapha = Water + Earth — the full classical pancabhuta composition, each dosha a 'joint' of two elements. Frawley's Book-2 medical theme gave vata = Air ONLY (no akasha constituent) and kapha = Water (with Earth folded UNDER Water, not a distinct constituent). So c01/c02 (vata->vayu, vata->akasha) and c06 (kapha->prithvi) record constituents Frawley OMITTED. The pitta = Fire+Water composition (c03/c04) is the one all sources share. EXTRACTION FLAG: the divergence is made graph-visible by the constituent_elements_svoboda dosha patches + edges c01-c06; reconciling the 3/4/5-element counting across the substrate is deferred to synthesis (Phase 3). Note Svoboda CONCURS with classical Ayurveda here, Frawley diverges from it.
Q128★Does Svoboda's 'a structure breathes prAna' assert literal prAna-IDENTITY (building-prAna = body-prAna) or a HOMOLOGY/analogy? (bears on Book-1 Q38 / Book-2 Q53, the prAna-as-breath thread)expansion-contractionsvoboda
STAR-STAR-STAR. The title-concept passage (ch. 4 'The Room's Center', PDF p.104): 'A structure's energies have a parallel respiration: the prAna moves from the center out into the structure, then back to the center... Health, in human or habitat, requires the free flow of prAna.' This is the corpus's strongest dwelling<->body prAna statement. CRUX: is Svoboda claiming the SAME prAna animates building and body (a literal identity, the building literally alive/breathing), or a structural HOMOLOGY (the building's energy-flow obeys the same in/out pulse as the body's breath, by the macrocosm-microcosm law)? Textual evidence pulls both ways: 'parallel respiration' and 'in human OR habitat' read as homology; yet the book's subtitle is 'Breathing Life into SPACE' and ch.3 already said space 'is alive, carries prAna, responds to prAna' (literal-leaning). This bears directly on Book-1 Q38 and Book-2 Q53 (the prAna-as-breath thread) -- cross-reference all three. CAPTURED here as a question; resolution is synthesis (Principle 11), deferred to the hub. Do NOT resolve at extraction time. Recorded on the cnx (rul-expansion-contraction <-> pra-prana) notes and the pra-prana patch add_note.
Q134★BS-81 = Paramasāyikā and BS-64 = Maṇḍūkapada: Svoboda supplies the series-names BS left descriptive (Q15 cross-book) — corroboration of the §6 reserved-name claim, or just one modern author's identification?shapes-mandalasvoboda
Svoboda names the 9×9 residential grid Paramasāyikā and the 8×8 grid Maṇḍūkapada (PDF p.136), reporting both from the Mayamata's 32-type pada-vinyāsa. BS 53.42–50 (man-vastu-81) and BS 53.55–56 (man-vastu-64) present these exact grids WITHOUT naming them; Book-1 carried 'paramasayika'/'manduka' only as TRADITIONAL/unconfirmed aliases (Q15). Per §6 the identification BS-grid = named-series is a CLAIM, here minted as corresponds-to edges c1/c2, NOT a merge. Open: does the southern Mayamata itself (Phase 2) confirm both the names AND that its Paramasāyikā/Maṇḍūkapada are the 9×9/8×8 (not some other slot in the 1×1…32×32 series)? Until then both edges stay draft, the Mayamata source-line verified:false.
Q139★Svoboda's dikpala roster puts KUBERA at North where BS 54.3 puts Soma/Moon — a cardinal-point scheme-vs-scheme divergence (§8)directionssvoboda
Svoboda's 'most commonly accepted' dikpala list (PDF p.159) seats Kubera (god of wealth) at the North; BS 54.3's roster (and the BS pada-middle deity) seats Soma/Moon at the North. This is the headline cardinal mismatch — unusual because BS's cardinals normally agree across its own two schemes. Svoboda himself pre-empts it: 'the names of these dikpalas vary from text to text' (p.158). Captured as a patch on dir-uttara (competing dikpala value, NOT overwriting dev-soma) + the dev-kubera stub + a school_position on rul-dual-deity-schemes. EXTRACTION FLAG only: surface Kubera-N (Svoboda) and Soma-N (BS) side-by-side per §3.2 diverge; reconciling roster variance is synthesis (Phase 2-3).
Q140★Svoboda's compass element<->direction roster (Fire-SE, Air-NW, Water-NE, SW/center = Space-or-Earth) vs the BS pada grid (§8)directionssvoboda
Svoboda (PDF p.150) gives a directional ELEMENT roster: Fire-SE, Air-NW, Water-NE, SW = Space OR Earth ('authorities disagree'), the fifth at center. BS 53 has NO compass element-roster; its PADA grid seats Apah/Waters at the inner NE (53.48), wind-named Anila at the SE corner, and Pitr at the SW corner. So Svoboda's Air-NW concurs with the Vayu-NW DIKPALA but DIVERGES from the BS pada grid (which puts the wind-name Anila at SE, not NW); his Water-NE loosely concurs with Apah-inner-NE by a different mechanism. Captured as rul-element-direction-scheme-svoboda + element patches + edges cnx-C..G. EXTRACTION FLAG: this is a MODERN author's correspondence, not a located classical verse — tagged MODERN throughout; the full scheme-against-scheme collation (Svoboda vs BS dikpala compass and pada grid) is deferred to Phase 2-3. (Picks up the elemental-space theme's deferral: 'collate Svoboda's full five element<->direction assignments against BS when the directions theme is assembled.')
Q141★Self-flagged ambiguity: SW = Space OR Earth, center = the other — Svoboda leaves it unresolveddirectionssvoboda
Svoboda (PDF p.150) explicitly does not resolve whether the SOUTHWEST carries Space (Akasha) or Earth (Prithvi); the fifth element (whichever is not at SW) sits at the stable CENTER. Both the Space-half (cnx-F: dir-nairrtya<->ele-akasha) and the Earth-half (cnx-G: dir-nairrtya<->ele-prithvi) are recorded per divergence discipline, neither asserted as final; rul-element-direction-scheme-svoboda carries the unresolved pair as has_internal_divergence:true. This matters for the prana spine: the prana-bearing element (Akasha) floats between SW and center, and SW's impeded prana-flow (kapha obstruction -> vata, p.157) is read off this scheme. Resolving SW vs center Space/Earth is synthesis.
Q146★★★★ Svoboda is the THIRD independent witness to the BS-unpinned graha↔direction roster (Sun-E…Jupiter-NE) — yet still UNPINNED; find the earliest root pinplanets-directionssvoboda
Svoboda's graha-dik roster (p168: Sun-E, Venus-SE, Mars-S, Rāhu&Ketu-SW, Saturn-W, Moon-NW, Mercury-N, Jupiter-NE) is byte-for-byte the same mapping that (a) BS Book-1 flagged as claimed-classical-but-UNPINNED on dir-agneya.graha, and (b) Frawley gives as his WORSHIP/compass scheme (rul-graha-direction-schemes-frawley, school_position 1). Three independent witnesses (BS-tradition note, Frawley 2013, Svoboda 2013) now concur on this exact 8-bearing roster — but ALL THREE are unpinned: Svoboda explicitly calls it merely 'the scheme that Vāstu employs most often' (p167) and notes that the five chief Jyotiṣa styles (Pārāśari, Jaimini, Nāḍi, Tāntrika, Tājika) offer MORE THAN ONE planet↔direction system. By schema §7, three modern/traditional concurrences do NOT promote the BS claimed-classical note to CLASSICAL — they raise its TRADITIONAL confidence and sharpen the Phase-2 target: locate the earliest root-text pin (candidate jyotiṣa compilations / a Vāstu mula verse). Captured as a question (§8 scheme-against-scheme), NOT asserted as a pin or a merge. Recorded on rul-graha-direction-svoboda (cross_book_note) and connection c10.
Q147★Svoboda seats BOTH lunar nodes (Rāhu AND Ketu) at the SW (8-bearing roster); Frawley's 9-fold ALTAR scheme splits Ketu to the NW — a roster-SHAPE divergenceplanets-directionssvoboda
Svoboda's roster is 8-bearing: Rāhu and Ketu jointly preside over the SW (p168, p174-175), the only bearing carrying two grahas. This concurs with Frawley's WORSHIP scheme (Rāhu-SW) but diverges in shape from Frawley's separate 9-fold YANTRA/ALTAR scheme, which splits Ketu to the NW (Sun-center, Venus-E, Ketu-NW…; rul-graha-direction-schemes-frawley school_position 2). So 'the planet-direction scheme' is plural at the node-placement level, not merely the cardinal level. Captured as a §8 scheme-shape question, not adjudicated. Svoboda also splits the nodes' doṣas on the shared bearing (Rāhu=vāta, Ketu=pitta, p174-175) — a captured curiosity, not a reconciliation.
Q150★Svoboda's directions-gunas equation (NE-sattva, SE/NW-rajas, SW-tamas), which HE flags as unconventional, is the spine of the ch.7 corner-confluences. Capture, do not adjudicateconfluencessvoboda
*** PRIORITY. In ch.7's second half (PDF pp.190-195) Svoboda makes the directions-gunas equation the backbone of every corner-confluence: NE=sattva (future/head), SE&NW=rajas (present/hands), SW=tamas (past/lower-body), clockwise with the sun. He himself flags this equation as UNCONVENTIONAL in his Preamble (recorded in the pilot directions theme, rul-direction-guna-scheme-svoboda). The pilot patched that rule from ch.6; this theme PATCHES it again with the ch.7 confluence_restatement evidence (NOT re-minted). OPEN QUESTION (synthesis-deferred, Principle 11): is there ANY classical antecedent for assigning the three gunas to the four intercardinal directions, or is it wholly Svoboda's MODERN construction? BS runs the dikpala compass and the pada-deity grid (section 8) but no directional guna-roster; Frawley left the gunas as bare stubs. Captured as Svoboda's self-flagged MODERN position; do NOT reconcile. The element axis it co-runs (Fire-SE, Water-NE, Air-NW, Earth-SW) likewise has no BS compass-element antecedent. Flag for Phase 2/3.
Q156★Cross-book corroboration: Svoboda re-cites BS 53.118 (kitchen-SE, worship-NE, store-SW, treasure/granary-NW) verbatim - confirm the shared root verse without merging the two books' recordsorganizing-spacessvoboda
Svoboda QUOTES Brihat Samhita 53.118 in full Sanskrit + translation + 'p. 495' (PDF p.208) and concurs on all four placements: kitchen SE (mahanasam agneyyam), worship/devagrha NE (aisanyam), storeroom SW (bhandopaskaro nairrtyam), treasure+granary NW (artha dhanyani marutyam). Book-1 already holds BS 53.118 as CLASSICAL-verified (dir-agneya, cnx-0013). The cross-book re-citation is corroboration, sourced to the SAME txt-brihat-samhita root verse with verified:false (Svoboda is the conduit); it must NOT be merged into Book-1's record or re-minted. Synthesis (Phase 3): record as independent attestation; do the cross-book provenance bookkeeping then. Bears on cnx-org-01/02/04/05.
Q157★Per-room SE=right-hand (Svoboda) vs the BS plot-Purusha limb scheme (head-NE/feet-SW, 53.51-54): two distinct limb-body assignments - which governs, and are they reconcilable?organizing-spacessvoboda
Svoboda reads the Vastu Purusha limb-body off the COMPASS, recursively, per room: the SE corner of ANY room is the right hand ('the hand he uses to perform auspicious activities'), disfigured by staircases (Marie case, PDF pp.198-200). BS 53.51-54 instead lays the prone plot-Purusha over the SINGLE plot, head-NE, feet-SW, with the hands among named deities (Savitr/Savitra). These are two different limb schemes (compass-per-room vs prone-plot-once) that are NOT collated here - the §8 two-schemes discipline applied to the limb-body. Captured as patches to dev-vastu-purusha + pra-vastu-purusha-anga and connections cnx-org-11/12; reconciliation is Phase-3 synthesis, never merged at extraction. Do NOT assert either as the other's classical warrant.
Q163★Svoboda's four-Ficus-by-direction scheme overlaps BS 53.85 (rul-fig-trees-by-direction) almost exactly — corroboration or coincidence? (cross-book, neem-cluster precedent)gardensvoboda
Svoboda's footnote (PDF pp.241-242) assigns Plakṣa→N, Vaṭa→E, Uḍumbara→S, Aśvattha→W (and the opposite directions as inauspicious). BS 53.85's rul-fig-trees-by-direction carries the same four-fig directional pairing (banyan/vaṭa beneficial-E, Indian fig/udumbara beneficial-S, Ashvattha beneficial-W, and a N-tree Bhat renders 'Peepal (likely plakṣa)' beneficial-N). The pairings are identical. EXTRACTION FLAG only: minted four flo- entities (flo-plaksha, flo-vata, flo-udumbara, flo-ashvattha) and flagged the overlap via see_also + per-edge CONCURS notes, NOT merged into the BS rule. Whether this is independent corroboration of one classical scheme or Svoboda silently drawing on BS/Bṛhat-Saṁhitā is synthesis (Phase 2-3), to be settled by Sanskrit collation.
Q166★id-string collision caution: flo-vata / frm-vata / dos-vata share the kebab string 'vata' under different prefixes/referentsgardensvoboda
flo-vata (banyan, Ficus benghalensis), frm-vata (an existing built-form), and dos-vata (the Ayurvedic dosha) all carry the kebab tail 'vata' but are distinct entities under distinct prefixes with unrelated referents. The prefix disambiguates them per schema §6, so no merge is warranted, but the shared string is a website-build / cross-reference hazard worth a note. EXTRACTION FLAG only: confirm the renderer keys on the full prefixed id, never the tail.
Q167★Svoboda SW-high/NE-low slope EXPLICITLY positioned AGAINST BS 53.90 varṇa-slope (rul-slope-by-varna) — direct doctrinal divergenceconstructionsvoboda
In his ch.10 footnote (PDF p.271) Svoboda names his SW-high/NE-low slope rule as 'one alternate to' the 'archaic drainage-based theory of the Bṛhat Saṁhitā', which he paraphrases exactly as BS 53.90's varṇa-slope (śūdra→west, vaiśya→south, kṣatriya→east, brāhmaṇa→north) and dismisses as caste-inspired. That BS scheme is Book-1 rul-slope-by-varna (53.90, verified). This is a clean MODERN-vs-CLASSICAL divergence on a single quantity (site slope): Svoboda gives ONE universal direction-of-slope; BS gives slope BY VARṆA. Captured as an intra-rule divergence on the new rul-site-slope-sw-high-ne-low (has_internal_divergence:true, axis:text) AND here. SYNTHESIS (Phase 3): is Svoboda's NE-low a generalization of the brāhmaṇa case, or a genuinely different (drainage-vs-prāṇa) rationale? Do NOT mint a contradicts-edge (intra-rule; §4.1). Do not reconcile now.
Q168★Svoboda QUOTES-AND-LOCATES BS 53.88 and BS 53.95 — cross-book overlap with Book-1 BS entities; collate verse numbersconstructionsvoboda
Svoboda gives Sanskrit + Bhat loci for BS 53.88 (topography verse, 'Bṛhat Saṁhitā 53:88, p.484') and BS 53.95 ('Any site becomes auspicious… provided that it gladdens his heart'). These OVERLAP Book-1: 53.88 ≈ the BS ground-quality cluster (rul-ground-qualities / cal-bhumi-pariksha); the 53.95 heart-verse ≈ cal-bhumi-pariksha's 'heart_criterion_note', which Book-1 placed at 53.91–94 (Bhat) cross-ref 75.3. ⚑ NUMBERING DISCREPANCY to resolve: Book-1's cal-bhumi-pariksha records the heart-criterion within 53.91–94, whereas Svoboda cites the heart-verse as 53.95 and Book-1's rul-soil-traits/'any site auspicious for one whose heart rejoices' also lands near 53.94–95. Collate Svoboda's 53.88/53.95 against Bhat's verse numbering; flag where editions differ. Patch applied to txt-brihat-samhita (CLASSICAL, verified:false, Svoboda as conduit). NOT merged with Book-1's BS records — surfaced for Phase-2/3 collation. ⚑ CONCRETE COLLATION DATUM (found in verification): Book-1's rul-ground-qualities records the IDENTICAL topography verse ('Ground that is soft, even, of sweet smell and taste…') at BS 53.87 (Bhat), whereas Svoboda cites the same verse at BS 53.88, p.484. That is a one-verse numbering offset on a single attested verse — the cleanest edition-collation flag in this theme. Resolve against Bhat's 1981 numbering in Phase 2.
Q169★Svoboda identifies SITE-MARMAS with subtle PRĀṆA-NĀḌĪ intersections — the Phase-3 move BS withheld (extends pra-vastu-marma & pra-bhumi-sira)constructionsvoboda
BS 53.57–58 (pra-vastu-marma) defines site-marmas as geometric diagonal/midpoint intersections whose damage (a buried śalya) afflicts the owner's CORRESPONDING LIMB; BS 54.2 (pra-bhumi-sira) makes earth-veins (bhūmi-śirā) gross WATER-channels parallel to body water-veins, and BOTH Book-1 records explicitly flagged the subtle-nāḍī identification as a Phase-3 move 'not made by BS'. Svoboda (PDF p.268) MAKES that move: marmas are intersections of 'terrestrial nāḍīs (ethereal vessels in which prāṇa moves)', damaged by building/heavy objects on them, disturbing 'the prāṇa that flows through them'. So (a) the marma MECHANISM diverges (śalya→limb vs nāḍī-obstruction→prāṇa) and (b) the earth-channels are recast from water-veins to prāṇa-nāḍīs. Patched onto pra-vastu-marma (land_marma_extension) and pra-bhumi-sira (nadi_identification); connection cnx-J minted. SYNTHESIS: is Svoboda's nāḍī reading a legitimate development of BS's sira, or a modern conflation? Capture, don't resolve (cross-ref Q5).
Q180★Unconfirmed attribution of the modern source 'Some Glimpses of Science and Technology of Vastu Sastra' (Sthapati)ordering-applicationsvoboda
Svoboda's footnote (p.296) cites 'Sthapati, op. cit. p.147' for the ch.11 door-direction saying. I minted txt-glimpses-vastu-shastra as a MODERN stub but could NOT confirm the full author/bibliographic data from this chapter's pages (likely V. Ganapati Sthapati, a well-known modern silpi author, but UNCONFIRMED -- flagged in the stub's attribution field). The 'op. cit.' implies a fuller citation earlier in Svoboda's notes (outside this theme's pages). Phase-2: confirm author/title/edition and whether this is the same Sthapati cited elsewhere in Svoboda; the stub id may need revision if the canonical title differs.