Question on John Frawleys Methods

1
In his book, he says to make sure the aspect actually happens.

Pluto is now at 00 Cap 38', assuming Fortuna is at 01 Cap 15'. Therefore although Pluto is applying conjunction to Fortuna, the aspect does not matter because Pluto turns retrograde at 01 Cap 09' before it reaches Fortuna.

How about this, assuming Mercury is L1 and at 8 Aq 20" retrograding away from Fortuna at 8 Aq 21" (this is a seperating aspect so we do not consider its influence). HOWEVER, Mecury will retrograde only to 8 Aq 19" and turns direct from there. The actual difference in movement is barely a few minutes astrologically, from seperating to applying partile.

Do you think the abovementioned Mercury aspect is valid and should be counted?

This is just one thing from his book that I am a little confused with. There are many more factors that are unclear and quite contradicting.

2
Since there have been no replies so far, I assume everybody's finding this question as difficult to answer as I am. Strictly speaking the aspect is separating so I would say it probably doesn't count but I'm not entirely sure. Even if it did count, another question might be, how much difference (if any) would it make to the weakness of a very slow retro Mercury?

4
At present, I would agree that I would not count a separating aspect.
There has to be factors that a 'weakness' would suggest either an inability to act, that is a defeat or only a draw.

Some of the recent games have seen a significator in the opposition's sign, or a cadent sign and making or receiving no aspects, albeit that it may have some dignity by term, triplicity, etc.

5
I haven't found the actions of the outer planets to be consistent, as Frawley says. And he says that retrogradation seems not to matter, which makes sense, since all the teams play with the same planets, rulers, etc.
Whatever it means, they adjust to it and the game goes on. And the odds-maker adjusts to it, too!

I'd ignore it.

Bob