The second collection extends the format to characters who present different analytical challenges.
Some are more morally complex. Not simply protagonists. The chart has to hold that complexity without reducing them to a verdict. Skyler White's chart cannot be built the way you would build Carrie Bradshaw's. The show's relationship to Skyler is less stable. The evidence is more contested. Capricorn rising is still consistent with a particular reading of her character, but the reading requires acknowledging that different viewers watched a different person.
Other characters here were chosen because the initial read was surprising: the chart that emerges from the evidence was not the one you would have guessed from the cultural reputation. Where the astrology is doing something more interesting than confirming the obvious.
The first batch established the premise: if you read carefully enough, the chart is there. The second batch stress-tests it. The format holds under more complex conditions. Characters written with less clarity. Characters whose function in the narrative is contested. Characters designed to be ambiguous.
It holds because the discipline stays the same: the case is built from the evidence in the text. When the evidence is ambiguous, the article says so. The ambiguity becomes part of the analysis rather than a gap in it.