Methodology · Accuracy
Wrong charts make
confident nonsense.
Everything in Jyotisha is computed from the chart. So we treat the chart as an astronomy problem first — and stand publicly behind the result.
The standing challenge
Find a reproducible computational error in Acharya's chart mathematics — a wrong planetary position, an incorrect divisional chart, a mis-computed dasha period, a wrong panchang element — and tell us. Every confirmed finding is fixed, published in our validation notes, and credited to you by name (if you wish).
Received — thank you. If it reproduces, it gets fixed and you get the credit.
The fine print, kept short: computational and reproducible (birth data + expected value + an authoritative source for it). Differences of school or convention — ayanāṁśa choice, divisional-chart variants, sunrise reckoning, interpretive disagreements — aren't errors; our defaults are documented choices.
How the engine is validated
True positions, to the arc-minute
Planetary longitudes are computed from a research-grade astronomical ephemeris — the same class of library professional astrology software is built on — as true sidereal positions with the Lahiri ayanāṁśa. Positions agree with independent astronomical sources to under an arc-second.
Validated against the professionals' reference
The full chart — lagna, the nine grahas, the sixteen divisional charts, shadbala, ashtakavarga, Vimshottari and the rasi dashas, KP — has been checked placement-by-placement against the reference software professional Jyotishis trust, across worked example charts published in the classical literature. Where our numbers could be compared, they match to the last digit.
Anchored to the books themselves
Not just software-to-software: shadbala totals are checked against B.V. Raman's published worked example, dasha periods against printed tables in the standard texts. When software and book disagree, we follow the book — and document the choice.
We found bugs in the references
Validation ran deep enough that we caught computational bugs in the reference implementations themselves — in KP sub-lord boundary tables, in annual-chart strength calculations — reported and documented, not copied. That's the level of scrutiny your chart gets.
Conventions declared, not fudged
Where classical schools genuinely differ — ayanāṁśa, divisional-chart variants, sunrise conventions — we implement the alternatives, pick a documented default, and record which school it follows. A convention is a choice; only an error is a bug.
Why we can make this challenge
Because the validation already happened. Before Acharya read a single chart for a member, the engine spent weeks being compared, placement by placement, against the software professional astrologers use and the worked examples the classical authors printed. Most astrology sites cannot make this challenge — their numbers wouldn't survive the first afternoon. Ours have survived everything we and the references could throw at them.
See it for yourself — draw your free kundali, computed by the same engine, and check any placement against software you trust.