Kosmovision exists to read one birth in every tradition at once, and to find out what they say to each other.
Twenty traditions from four continents, separated by oceans and by centuries, look at the same moment and describe the same person in different words. Sometimes they converge so precisely that it is hard to call it coincidence. Sometimes they contradict each other outright, and that turns out to be the more interesting reading. Nobody was putting them side by side and asking what the overlap means, so this was built to do that: the practitioner's question, asked with the computer's patience.
Three things meet in every chart here. The first is the traditions themselves, and they are not ours: they are the work of the astrologers, diviners, calendar keepers and scholars who set them down, some of them thousands of years ago, most of them still practised today. Everything the app computes comes from that published work. Every reference table, every nakshatra boundary, every hidden stem, every one of the three hundred and sixty Sabian symbols is checked against the sources before that tradition ships, and the page names which source and which school it follows. When two schools disagree, we say which one we take and why, rather than choosing quietly.
The second is the arithmetic. Kosmovision uses the same ephemeris that professional astrology software uses, and the calculations are tested the way software is tested: hundreds of cases pinned against published charts, so that a tradition is either right or the test fails. That is the part a computer is genuinely better at, and the reason twenty traditions can be computed for one person in the time it takes to read a paragraph.
The third is the practitioners who consult on it. People who work inside these traditions test the app and read what it produces, and tell us where it is wrong: a table that disagrees with how their school casts it, a reading that says something a practitioner never would. They are not on staff and they do not write the readings. They are the check on people who can compute a tradition faster than they can be sure they have understood it, which is the failure mode of building this with software.
What no computer does here is decide what a tradition means. That was decided by the people who built it, and it is written down.
A language model, working from those computed charts. We would rather tell you plainly than let you assume an astrologer wrote it. What we control is what it is allowed to say: every claim has to name the placement it comes from, nothing may be written that would be true of anyone, and no tradition is ever allowed to "conclude" something about you. A pattern across twenty traditions is something a reading found, not a verdict they reached.
More practitioners, in more of these traditions. Twenty is a great many to hold well, and every one of them deserves someone who has spent a life inside it: to check what has been built, to argue with the choices, and to be credited on the pages they touch. If you practise in one of these traditions, or in one we have not built yet, write to us.
It is not a substitute for a reading from a person. Several of these traditions are living lineages, and a good practitioner in one of them will give you something an app cannot. Kosmovision is for reflection and self-knowledge, and it says so at the foot of every page. When a tradition cannot honestly be computed, we say so and do not fake it: Ifá is received from a babaláwo in person, so the app teaches the sixteen odù and keeps the one you were given rather than pretending to cast for you.
Underneath the practical question, which is what your chart says, there is a longer one. These systems were built by people who never met, out of the same sky, and they keep arriving at the same shapes. Whether that points at something shared at the source, or at something shared in us, is not a question a product can settle. It is the question that makes this worth building.