How many rubrics should I use in a repertory session?

There is no fixed number. The aim is to include the symptoms that are most characteristic and most useful for differentiating between remedies, and to leave out those that are common or uncertain. A short, well-chosen set of rubrics is usually more informative than a long list.

Should I always take the remedy with the highest repertory score?

No. The highest score is a candidate, not a conclusion. The remedy must also fit the case when checked against materia medica, including the modalities, concomitants, and overall picture. Clinical judgement remains part of the process.

What is the most common repertory error?

Including too many rubrics, especially common ones, is a frequent error because it broadens the results and makes them harder to interpret. Choosing rubrics by familiarity rather than by fit is another common pitfall.

How do I know if a rubric is the right one?

Check that the symptom is genuinely present, that the patient's description matches the rubric's meaning, and that the rubric is characteristic rather than commonplace. If in doubt, cross-check the remedy options against materia medica before relying on the rubric.

Repertory Practice Error Checklist

Does the case-taking already set up repertory errors?

Yes. Most repertory mistakes are made before the book opens. If the case record is vague, contradictory, or shaped by the practitioner's assumptions, no amount of careful rubric work will rescue the result. A repertory session is only as good as the raw material it is given.

A useful discipline is to separate what the patient actually said or showed from your interpretation of it. Record the patient's own words for sensations, modalities, and mental states, then add your clinical reading in a separate column. This keeps interpretation visible and reversible, so you can revisit it later without losing the original data.

It also helps to note timing, intensity, and what makes each symptom better or worse. A rubric is often defined by its modalities and concomitants, not by the symptom name alone. If those details are missing, you will be forced to guess during repertorization, which is where the guessing habit begins.

Write the patient's exact phrasing before paraphrasing it.
Mark each symptom with timing, intensity, and modality.
Separate observed signs from reported symptoms.
Note what the patient denies as well as what they report.
Keep a running list of questions you still need to ask.

Are you choosing rubrics by familiarity rather than by fit?

A common pitfall is reaching for rubrics you know well because they are comfortable, not because they match the case. The repertory is large, and the temptation to use the same dozen rubrics across different patients is real. Familiarity is not evidence of relevance.

Before adding a rubric, ask whether the symptom it represents is genuinely present, whether it is characteristic or common to the case, and whether the patient described it in a way that maps onto the rubric's meaning. A rubric that sounds similar but describes a different quality of experience will pull the analysis off course.

It is also worth checking whether the rubric is a general or a particular. General rubrics often carry more weight in repertorization because they describe the whole person, while particulars can be numerous and less discriminating. Mixing them without thought can distort the totals.

Question to ask	Why it matters
Is the symptom definitely present?	A rubric based on a doubtful symptom adds noise.
Is it characteristic or commonplace?	Common symptoms appear in many remedies and discriminate poorly.
Does the patient's description match the rubric's wording?	Similar-sounding rubrics can describe different experiences.
Is it a general or a particular?	Generals often carry more repertory weight than particulars.

Should you repertorize every symptom in the case?

No. Including everything is one of the most frequent errors in repertory practice. A long list of rubrics, many of them ordinary, produces a broad spread of remedies and a result that is hard to interpret. The aim is to select the symptoms that are most characteristic and most likely to differentiate between remedies.

Practitioners often work with a hierarchy: mental and general symptoms first, then strange, rare, and peculiar particulars, then common particulars. This is a working convention rather than a fixed rule, but it reflects the idea that the most individualizing symptoms should carry the most weight.

After repertorizing, review which rubrics actually influenced the top remedies. If a rubric contributed little or pulled in a remedy that does not fit the case, consider removing it and re-running the analysis. Repertorization is iterative, not a single pass.

What goes wrong when you read the repertory too literally?

Rubrics are compressed labels, not full descriptions. Reading them as exact equivalents of a patient's experience leads to mismatches. A rubric may group several related sensations under one heading, and the remedies listed under it may not all express the symptom in the same way.

The same caution applies to remedy grades and counts. A high grade in one rubric does not automatically mean the remedy is the best fit for the case. Grades reflect the source material's emphasis, which varies between authors and editions, and they should inform judgement rather than replace it.

Cross-checking a promising remedy against materia medica is the standard corrective. If the remedy's overall picture does not match the case, a strong rubric score is not enough. This is also where translation and version differences can matter, so it is worth knowing which edition you are using and what its conventions are.

Are you confusing repertory results with a prescription?

A repertorization output is a shortlist, not a decision. The remedies that rise to the top are candidates for further study, and the final choice depends on the whole case, the materia medica, and clinical judgement. Treating the top-scoring remedy as the answer skips the most important part of the process.

It is also easy to over-weight the number of rubrics a remedy covers. A remedy that appears in many rubrics may be broadly indicated but not deeply characteristic, while a remedy in fewer, more specific rubrics may fit the case more precisely. Counting alone does not resolve this.

A practical check is to write a short paragraph explaining why the chosen remedy fits the case, in plain language, without reference to scores. If you cannot do that convincingly, the analysis is not finished.

Review the top candidates against the full case, not just the rubric totals.
Check whether the remedy explains the modalities and concomitants.
Look for a remedy that covers the characteristic symptoms, not the most symptoms.
Write a plain-language justification before committing to a prescription.
Note any unresolved questions for the follow-up.

What follow-up habits prevent repeated repertory mistakes?

Follow-up is where repertory errors become visible. If the case did not respond as expected, the reasons may lie in the case-taking, the rubric selection, the remedy choice, or the potency and repetition. Reviewing the original repertorization alongside the outcome helps identify which stage went wrong.

Keeping a record of the rubrics used, the remedies considered, and the reasoning behind the final choice makes this review possible. Without that record, each session becomes a fresh guess, and the same errors recur.

It also helps to distinguish between a wrong remedy and a correct remedy given in the wrong way. Those are different problems with different corrections, and conflating them leads to unnecessary changes in prescribing strategy.