Problems in horary - Different approaches

It is not only modern astrologers that have many differences of opinion, but traditional astrologers also have their own share. In horary astrology in particular, I have noted the following differences among the various authors:

1. Turning the chart. It seems it all depends how one views the chart. Frawley seems to treat it as the chart of the Querent and therefore turns the chart rather a lot, except in very few cases. Barbara Dunn regards the chart as belonging to the Question and avoids turning the chart as much as possible. According to her, the radical 5^th house for example, always has to do with pregnancy even if it is a third party question and also the 7^th house always has to do with relationships and should be checked, no matter which turned houses are involved.
2. Rulers of houses. Here we have three choices: The ruler of the sign on the cusp, the almuten of the degree on the cusp or a planet inside the house. Frawley is adamant and always uses the sign ruler. Lehman always checks the almuten and makes a choice between the two and Dunn favours strongly the planet inside the house, especially when the sign ruler doesn’t aspect the house in question. She also uses an intercepted sign ruler as co-significator of the house.
3. Sun and Venus in relationship questions. Frawley uses them as co-significators of the parties involved, but he seems to be the only one. Lehman doesn’t do it and Dunn, in case one of the significators is in strong Sun or Venus dignities, regards this as testimony that one of them is interested or involved with another person.
4. 10^th house and 6^th house for work. Dunn and Frawley always use the 10^th house, while Lehman is uncomfortable using the 10^th house for all professional matters, because the 10^th house is associated with Honours, Preferrment etc. and in some cases she uses the 6^th house. I think Lehman has a point. Yes, the 6^th house is the house of slavery, but what is the equivalent of slavery nowadays? A job that you hate, never wanted to do nor studied for, but have to do it for money, isn’t it quite close to slavery?
5. The “any other person” notion. Frawley uses the 7^th house for people you have no connection with, but Houlding in her houses book mentions that if the person asked about has no relation with the Querent nor is the Querent affected by them, this person should be given the 1^st house, except in cases when the Querent has a sort of emotional involvement in the Question. For example, in the Question “will the escaped murderer be caught?” the Querent feels threatened by another person (general enemy) and they should be given the 7^th house. If not, the 1^st house.
6. Outer planets. Frawley and Dunn hardly ever use them (Frawley uses them rarely and under certain circumstances), but Lehman, although of course she doesn’t use them for significators, checks the aspects they make with the primary significators.
7. The role of the Moon. Frawley and Dunn use it as co-significator of the Querent, but Dunn thinks the Moon is always important, even in third party questions. Lehman sees the Moon more as symbolizing the sequence of events.
8. Considerations before judgement. Frawley doesn’t even mention them, while Lehman and especially Dunn do and find that certain ones can be of value.