Scope of Service: What We Do Not Offer

A service that states what it does not do is making a costly statement: it voluntarily narrows the range of what can be sold. This is the basic premise behind a boundary statement for a destiny-analysis service. Rather than presenting itself as able to answer all questions, the service draws explicit lines. The lines are not decorative. They affect what the tool computes, what the practitioner will judge, what data are collected, and what the price actually covers. When these lines are absent, the client has no way to verify the service except through the provider’s own assertions. When they are present, the service can be checked against its own published limits.

写明不做什么是一项成本

Writing down what a service does not do is not a neutral act of transparency. It is an act with commercial consequences. A firm that sells a broad, undefined promise can keep its addressable market wide. It can accept questions about career, health, marriage, litigation, travel, naming, facial features, palm lines, and house orientation without committing to any particular method. Once the service publishes a boundary, it gives up that flexibility. It says, in effect, that some questions are outside its scope, some methods are not used, some data are not collected, and some outputs are not included in the stated price.

That narrowing is a cost. It may turn away a client who asks for a service the provider could perform but has chosen not to sell in this product. It may also create a contractual reference point: if the service later expands, the old boundary statement still describes what was offered at the time. For these reasons, a boundary statement is best understood as a deliberate constraint rather than as marketing language. The constraint is the point.

The alternative is also clear. A service that does not state its boundaries can only be believed. If it says it calculated something, the client cannot check whether that calculation was ever part of the product. If it refuses a question, the refusal appears arbitrary because there was no prior list. If it stores data, the client does not know for how long. If a price is quoted, the client does not know what is included. The absence of boundaries transfers the burden of trust entirely to the provider.

计算边界：算哪些项目，不算哪些

The first boundary is the calculation boundary. It identifies which items the tool computes and which items it does not compute. This boundary concerns the engine rather than the practitioner’s interpretive opinion. It is a list of capabilities, not a list of topics.

In the case of the engine described here, the calculation boundary is explicit. The engine does not compute 建除，宜忌，冲煞, or 值神. These are common items in almanac-based Chinese metaphysics, but they are outside the stated scope of this tool. The engine also does not perform name analysis, face reading, palm reading, or true solar time correction. Name analysis includes methods that assign meaning to the strokes or sounds of a personal name. Face reading and palm reading are physiognomic methods. True solar time correction is a clock adjustment used by some practitioners to convert standard time to a solar-based local time.

By listing these exclusions, the service tells the user what the output does and does not contain. A user who expects 建除 or 宜忌 to appear in a report can see in advance that they will not. A user who asks whether the tool adjusts for true solar time can be referred to the boundary. The calculation boundary is therefore not a refusal to discuss a subject. It is a statement of what the engine will and will not produce. The distinction matters because a service may be willing to discuss a method in general terms while still not computing it.

判断边界：哪些问题不作回答

The second boundary is the judgment boundary. The calculation boundary concerns what the engine computes. The judgment boundary concerns what the service will not answer. These are different kinds of limits. A tool might compute a chart, but the service might still decline to answer certain questions about that chart.

The service described here publishes its list of unanswered questions openly on the site. The list is not hidden. It is not revealed only when a client asks a prohibited question and is then turned away. It is available as part of the service description. This is the key distinction: the refusal is announced before the question is asked, not after.

The judgment boundary exists because some questions carry stakes that the service does not wish to address, or because some answers cannot be given within the method’s scope. The exact list is published on the site, and the boundary statement refers to that list as the operative document. The reference entry does not reproduce the list item by item, because the list may change and the site is the authoritative source. What matters here is the structural point: a judgment boundary is a standing rule, not a case-by-case refusal.

A service that lacks a judgment boundary can be seen as reserving the right to refuse any question at any time. That may be legally permissible, but it is not a boundary in the sense used here. A real judgment boundary is knowable in advance. It allows a prospective client to decide whether the service is suitable before paying.

资料边界：收哪些字段，存多久

The third boundary is the data boundary. It states which fields are collected, how long they are stored, and whether they can be deleted. This boundary is not about the metaphysical method. It is about the operational handling of personal information.

A data boundary might say, for example, that the service collects a birth date, a birth time, a birth place, and a contact address, but does not collect government identification numbers. It might say that records are stored for a defined retention period and then deleted. It might say that a user can request deletion before the end of that period. The exact fields and retention terms are specific to the service, and the reference entry does not invent them. The structural requirement is that these facts be stated.

The data boundary matters because a destiny-analysis service often receives sensitive personal details. A client may not want a birth time retained indefinitely. A client may not want a name tied to a chart. A client may not want a record kept after a consultation ends. The data boundary gives the client a way to know what happens to the information.

Without a data boundary, the service is asking for data on an open-ended basis. The client gives information but has no stated basis for knowing what is kept, for how long, or whether it can be removed. The absence of this boundary is not proof of misuse, but it is a lack of a verifiable commitment.

价格边界：包含什么，另外收什么

The fourth boundary is the price boundary. It states what the price includes and what requires additional payment. This is the boundary that most directly affects the transaction.

A price boundary might say that the listed fee includes one chart calculation and one written report of a fixed length, but does not include follow-up questions, additional charts, or a live consultation. It might say that a revision is included, but a second revision is not. It might say that the fee includes the data storage for a stated period, but not a printed copy sent by post. The exact contents vary. The structural point is that the price boundary separates what is covered from what is not.

The price boundary is distinct from the calculation boundary. A service might compute a chart for a fixed fee, but charge separately for interpreting a particular aspect of that chart. Or it might include a basic interpretation but charge for a written report. The calculation boundary says what the tool can do. The price boundary says what the client has already paid for.

Without a price boundary, the client cannot know whether a question will be answered as part of the original fee or billed as an extra. A service may answer the first follow-up free and charge for the second, but if that rule is not stated, the client experiences the charge as unexpected. The price boundary prevents that uncertainty.

四项都找不到时能得出的结论

The four boundaries are calculation, judgment, data, and price. They are not the only possible boundaries, but they are the ones a client should look for. When none of the four can be found, the comparison between services can only be based on the provider’s own account. That is itself a piece of information.

It does not mean the service is unreliable. It means the service has not given the client a basis for verification. The client can only rely on what the provider says about the method, the scope, the data handling, and the price. The provider’s self-description may be accurate, but it is not checkable against any prior statement.

When a service publishes its boundaries, it can be checked. A user can see whether the engine’s output matches the stated calculation limits. A user can see whether a question falls within the published judgment list. A user can see whether the data retention matches the stated data boundary. A user can see whether a charge matches the stated price boundary. The boundary statement becomes a testable document.

The conclusion drawn from the absence of all four boundaries is not that the service is wrong. It is that the service has chosen not to narrow its sellable range. That choice has a consequence: the client must trust, because there is nothing to check. A service with stated boundaries accepts the cost of narrowing its offer. In return, it gives the client something that an unbounded service cannot give: a standard against which the service can be measured.