AUTHOR’S NOTE: I’ve created a similar tableau in the past, but this time I’m linking it to a determination of just how much reliance a reader should place on the accuracy of the cards pulled for a reading. We all know the cards are “always right,” but on occasion they may be subversive in the computer programmer’s “WYSIWYG” sense of “What you see is not what you get.”

The layout breaks down into three tiers: unshakeable belief in the cartomantic evidence (the “Bond of Trust” tier); the emergence of uncertainty (the “Erosion of Confidence” tier); and a complete lack of assurance (the “Loss of Faith” tier). Beginners often ask whether they should believe what the cards are telling them (and sometimes not wanting to believe); this is an attempt to codify the answer using reversal as a compass.

Upright cards will show either a continuation or a recovery of confidence, while reversed cards will reflect a dearth of affirmation that, if it persists, could degenerate into total denial. Unless you choose to lend interpretive weight to the fact of reversal (I do), the transition from one tier to another will have no effect on the reading itself except to indicate how trustworthy the developing narrative will be. The cards are to be read as if they belong to a five-card line; all that changes is how dependable the contribution of each one is. Too many dubious inputs might well sink the reading, so I would look for a preponderance of either upright or reversed cards as a “litmus test” for how much credibility should be accorded the outcome.

Here is what the pattern looks like, with guidance on its use below. Note that the “double hit” for the impact of the initial reversal in the “Erosion of Confidence” row is based on the assumption that, human nature being what it is, recovering from a loss of conviction early in the matter is more daunting than losing faith in the first place. Thus, until the situation begins to mature halfway through, it will take two upright cards following the reversal of Card #1 to begin moving back toward full confidence. In that scenario, chances of a complete restoration of faith before the end of the reading are no better than even as indicated by the flattening of the curve.

To begin, shuffle the deck while concentrating on the question or topic of interest, mixing the cards in a way that will introduce random reversals. Cut the deck if you wish.

Pull one card from the pack in your usual manner. If it is upright, place it in the first (left-most) position of the “Bond of Trust” row, and if it is reversed place it in the first position of the “Erosion of Confidence” row.

Following an initial upright pull, draw another card; if it is also upright, place it in the second position of the “Bond of Trust” row, implying a “stead state” of reliability. If it is reversed, place it in the second position of the “Erosion of Confidence” row, which introduces some uncertainty into the picture.

Following an initial reversed pull, draw another card; if it is upright, place it in the second position of the “Erosion of Confidence” row, but if it is also reversed, place it in the second position of the “Loss of Faith” row (the first position of that row is not used).

For subsequent cards, follow the upright or reversed chain as shown in the photo. Closing the series on a sustained upright theme in Cards #3 through #5 will assure sufficient integrity to support accepting the forecast as it stands, while concluding with a reversed downturn of the same magnitude will do just the opposite, signifying an erosion of veracity. In the second case, the testimony should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Read the five-card series with an eye toward both the anecdotal substance of the narrative and the credibility of each card’s input. If the latter is lacking in probity as a group, the validity of the former may also be suspect.

This exercise is intended to be an aid in judging the overall believability of the cards we pull. Obviously, having strong faith in the truthfulness of upbeat cards and mistrusting the claims of those that are more downcast is a tempting misconception, so I’ve tried to remove some of the personal bias from it. Hopefully it will be more impartial than subjectively judging admissibility based solely on the inherent strength or weakness of the individual cards.