Methods used to assess planets' strength were devised by noted astrologers ranging from Alexandre Volguine, Jacques Berthon, Christophe de Cène, Gilles Verneret, to Catherine Aubier, Yves Lenoble, etc. Almost all astrologers studying birthcharts started to develop their own system when they got involved in programming.

All these methods are historically interesting as, most often, they have led to improvements in the determination of dominants and offered remarkable results. Our purpose here is not to dismantle them, but only to briefly explain in which ways our efforts may have taken the process a great leap further, by applying our mathematical weighting to each criterion, and not mere numerical valuations.
The varying degree of the strength of a planet, when in one of the above cases, constitutes quite a strange debate in the sense that, on the one hand, it is written that a planet in domicile or in exaltation is most potent and "gives of its best", and that when in exile or in fall, it is thwarted. On the other hand, it is also mentioned that calculation methods include a bonus in the first two cases and a penalty in the other two. Both bonus and penalty increase the importance of the said planet and they impact on the whole series of usual criteria: hierarchy of the elements, modes, houses, signs, etc.
Should a planet in exile be considered "less powerful" than a planet in domicile and that it cannot become a dominant, due to its difficult position? Some people would answer no, because a so-called malefic planet in exile or in fall has its incapacitating potential increased, hence, its power... owing, precisely, to this position! Therefore, is it reasonable to grant a power bonus only to planets with a "favourable" influence? One must remain level-headed on this matter, lest one gets results that do not match those produced by manual analysis.