What a case study is.
A case study at Trikaala is a written account of a reading — what the seeker brought, what the spread was, what came up in the dialogic interpretation, what the reflection brief named, and (where the seeker has reported back) what happened in the weeks following. Each case study is anywhere from 1,200 to 2,500 words, written in the editorial register of the rest of the site, and intended to show the method in actual use rather than describe the method in the abstract.
How we write them.
Every case study is either a composite (drawn from elements of several anonymised sessions, with structural fidelity to the kind of reading being described, but with identifying details changed) or a fully consented single-session account (the client read and approved the version that appears). We do not publish sessions without explicit written consent. We do not write “based on a real client” pieces in which the boundary is fudged. Each case study is marked at the top with its kind.
Identifying details — names, professions, cities, family compositions — are always changed in composites. Even in fully-consented pieces, we change at least one specific identifying fact to make the published account ungoogleable back to the client. The client’s privacy outranks the article’s documentary precision.
What the case studies are for.
They are reference material — both for prospective clients (who want to see what a session actually looks like before booking) and for academy students (who learn the method partly by reading carefully through real session accounts). They are also accountability documents: by publishing the work publicly, we hold the practice to the standard of being publishable. A reading that we would not be willing to write up is a reading we should probably not have conducted in the way we did.
Structure of a case study.
Each case study follows the same five-step shape as the protocol itself: the opening (what the seeker brought, how the framing of the session was set), the spread (which spread was chosen and why), the laying and middle (what came up in the cards and in the dialogue), the closing (what the reflection brief named), and the follow-up (what happened, where the client has reported back). The structural symmetry is deliberate: the case study is the protocol in narrative form.
What case studies are not.
They are not testimonials. We do not curate the case studies to show the practice in its best light. Several of the case studies show readings in which the method had to refuse to do what the client wanted; the refusal is the story. They are not predictions retroactively confirmed. They are not marketing copy disguised as journalism. They are accounts.