What a readable interpretation export should preserve
An interpretation export should let another reader understand what was asked and how the answer was produced. A page of polished prose may omit the draw positions, a corrected input, or the source passage that justified a historical claim. Those omissions make the text harder to evaluate after it leaves the application.
This is a proposed specification for readable exports. It does not announce an existing Mystilink export feature or promise a future release. The inspected desktop source documents structured tarot results and session transcripts, which are relevant places for an implementer to examine when considering such a feature.
Preserve the question and its scope
Place the original question near the interpretation. If the question changed, include the version used for this answer and a brief note that an earlier version exists. A reader should not have to infer the question from the conclusion.
A fictional example might begin, "What could help me prepare for a difficult project discussion next week?" That scope matters. An answer about preparation should not travel as a general prediction about the person's career. Include a short description of the exercise if the question alone leaves the intended use ambiguous.
Separate the subject's words from an editor's paraphrase. The export can provide a shorter display question, but retain the original wording where it materially affects the reading. Do not silently turn a tentative question into a stronger assertion.
Include the relevant inputs
For a tarot note, preserve the deck edition when known, the spread, position meanings, and ordered cards. Include orientation only if the exercise used it. A visual diagram can help, but the accompanying text should remain intelligible when copied or read without the image.
The inspected Mystilink tarot formatter records the spread and cards and handles a skipped draw explicitly. A proposed export should preserve that distinction. A skipped inquiry needs a visible label so the exported prose cannot suggest that a completed draw supplied its basis.
For a chart note, include the inputs and conventions needed to understand the calculation while minimizing identifying information. The public version may omit a name and use fictional data, but it must then say that it is a fictional teaching example. Replacing real values changes the example and should never be presented as a faithful record of the original calculation.
Keep source references usable
Attach a reference to the sentence or passage it supports. For books, include the edition and location information available to the author. For an image, identify the object or deck edition and respect the permission needed to reproduce it. A bare image copied from an unknown source weakens both attribution and review.
An export should distinguish a quoted passage from the writer's summary. If a quotation was translated for the note, identify who supplied that translation or mark it as the author's working translation. Preserve the original wording when needed to evaluate a disputed term.
Links should have readable labels. A reader printing the note or using an offline copy should still be able to identify the source from its title and other bibliographic information. A long list of unrelated references at the end cannot compensate for unsupported claims in the body.
Show the status of the interpretation
Label AI-generated prose and identify human editing where it affects attribution. Preserve material corrections in the export: changed inputs, repaired source claims, and revised conclusions. Routine intermediate drafts can stay in the working record.
Give the answer a status that describes actual work. "Reviewed against supplied card order" is narrower and more useful than "verified." If a historical citation remains unchecked, say so beside that claim or omit the claim from the shared version.
The reader's response should appear as their response. A fictional learner might say that one prompt was useful and another did not fit. Preserve that disagreement. Turning feedback into an endorsement would change the evidence and misrepresent the learner.
Make sharing a separate review step
Before producing a public copy, review all included fields for unnecessary personal information. Session text can contain identifying material far from the main profile. A public export needs its own inspection even when the original conversation stayed within a private workspace.
Provide a place to identify omitted material without revealing it. "Personal background removed from this public teaching copy" can explain why a passage refers to information the reader cannot inspect. If the omission prevents fair evaluation, choose another example for public teaching.
Accessibility also affects usefulness. Use real text, meaningful headings, and descriptions for essential diagrams. Check that cards and positions remain associated when the page is narrow or printed. An export that looks correct only at one screen size can scramble the evidence for another reader.
Evaluate the proposal with one example
Test the proposed format using a short fictional reading and ask a reviewer to reconstruct the question, inputs, and reasoning. Note every point where they need information that the export lacks. Remove fields that add clutter without helping that task.
Keep this specification open to revision. The final format should suit the kinds of notes people actually share and the controls the product can support. A successful export gives a future reader enough context to examine the interpretation and enough attribution to understand who supplied each part.