Yes I clearly understand this is an open question. Different astrologers point to different house systems and all have reasonable reasons for their choices. Some state that one should use different systems for different purposes or techniques: other disagree, maintaining that the astrological system should be consistent. The answer will most likely be found in practice.

My interest is mainly focused on natal astrology and when working with the classical (“traditional”) astrology techniques, I use the Whole Sign Houses because that’s what the Greeks used when they developed these techniques.
(and yes also based on the research by Robert Hand and others)

First of all, I pay attention to the angles and the quadrants, and give a lot of leeway for the intermediate Houses. I feel that the Houses, much more than the Signs, flow easily into each other. With the Signs, there’s no middle ground—29 degrees of Capricorn is still 100% Capricorn, and 0 degrees of Aquarius is 100% Aquarius. But there isn’t such a clear distinction between the 10th and 11th Houses, for example.

However uncertain as I can be about this subject, I always also take a look at the chart based on the Placidus and Koch system. Often this does not result in planets being moved into another house (as is the case in my own natal chart), however at times it does and than it becomes a subject of significant interest.

So far I have stayed with the whole sign system, because intuition confirmed me that this was mirroring best what I saw in the person. Very unscientific and easily colored by wishful thinking.

Do others recognize the struggle I have with this subject? And do you find confidence in your final answer, or is it more following the (Placidus) footsteps of the majority?