Compare deck systems without forcing false equivalents

Five questions to ask of every card

• What name and number are printed or otherwise supported for this deck card?
• Is the relation direct identity, historical variation, rank-and-suit correspondence, a numbering difference, or ordinal comparison only?
• Which visual details were actually inspected?
• Which historical claims have a cited source?
• Which meaning is a modern reflective synthesis rather than historical doctrine?

Strength and Justice show why numbering cannot be assumed

In the canonical Rider–Waite–Smith route order, Strength is VIII and Justice is XI. In the Lequart Besançon pack, La Justice is VIII and La Force is XI. The current local files also require corrected slot mapping: La Force XI is stored at justice.webp, while La Justice VIII is stored at strength.webp.

The comparison is meaningful because the recognizable identities remain present. The numbers still need to be shown as the edition prints them.

Junon II and Jupiter V are substitutions, not renamed copies

This Besançon variant places Junon II where many readers expect the Papess or High Priestess and Jupiter V where they expect the Pope or Hierophant. Their panels must begin with Junon and Jupiter, then explain the historical-variant relationship.

That order matters: the actual card comes first; the canonical route supplies comparison context second.

Sesto VI demonstrates ordinal comparison only

Sesto VI occupies the slot reached from the canonical Lovers route, but Sesto remains its own Sola Busca identity rather than a direct Lovers equivalent. Its native identity and observed image control the panel; the shared numeral only helps a reader compare positions in two different sequences.

The same rule applies across the 22 Sola Busca triumphs. Native identity leads, and no direct Rider–Waite–Smith equivalence is implied.

Rank and suit create a bridge, not a duplicate meaning

The 56 minor cards can be compared through rank and suit. That structural bridge is useful, but it does not prove that the decks show the same scene, inherit the same symbolism, or require the same emphasis.

Read the available image evidence and the deck's own structure before importing a narrative from another system.

Comparison should end where the evidence ends

A modern interpretation can suggest a reflective tendency. It cannot establish an original maker's divinatory intention, predict an event, prove a private state, or turn an ordinal resemblance into historical identity.

When a visual detail or correspondence is unverified, the honest result is a narrower panel—not a smoother story.

Continue with a focused next step