KLIFEMAP INTELLIGENCE FRAMEWORK™
'Jeongbon' (正本) means true to the original text. The classical texts of Myeongrihak — Ja-pyeong Jin-jeon (子平眞詮), Jeokcheonsu Cheonmi (滴天髓闡微), Gungtong Bogam (窮通寶鑑) — already lay out the principles for establishing Gyeokguk and the procedure for determining Yongsin. The KLifeMap Intelligence Framework™ does not reinterpret this procedure on its own terms; it is a judgment framework that carries it over, unchanged, into a form a computer can execute repeatably. Every KLifeMap.AI service runs on top of this.
① Same input = same result
The same Saju always produces the same reading. Interpretations that shift depending on who's reading or which day it is are excluded.
② Preserving the classical procedure
The order of establishing Gyeokguk, the priority between conditions, and other procedures and hierarchies set by the classics are preserved as-is in the code structure. Folk Sinsal without a documented basis (Wonjinsal, Samjae, etc.) are not adopted.
③ Separating judgment from explanation
Judgment (Decision) is performed only by the rule-based engine, and AI is limited to the role of explaining the result. The structure does not allow AI to change the judgment criteria.
④ Disclosing the basis for judgment
In expert mode, you can review the entire judgment process — the basis for confirming the Gyeokguk, the details of the strength/weakness evaluation, and the basis for evaluating each Daeun period. We don't just hand you a conclusion.
The core computation method of this framework is undergoing a patent application, and the engine source code is separately protected through copyright registration and trade secret status. Accordingly, the specific computation method and calculation structure are not disclosed. "KLifeMap Intelligence Framework" is a technology brand of KLifeMap.AI.
Yes. That is the first principle. The judgement is made by a rule-based engine, so the same chart yields the same judgement whoever is reading and whatever day it is. The write-up is produced by AI, so the sentences may differ, but the judgement underneath them does not change.
No. The rule engine alone makes the judgement; the AI is used only to put that result into plain language. The AI cannot alter the criteria. That is why changing the underlying AI model leaves the judgement untouched — only the wording of the explanation changes.
We did not adopt the folk sinsal that we could not trace back to a procedure set down in the classics. We are not ruling that they are wrong — it is that the classics we stand on have no place for them, so we cannot show you what a result would be grounded in. We chose not to include what we cannot show grounds for.