I think Chanah is right, the word Considerations seems to have been replaed by the rather stronger word Strictures during the last century. It was possibly Marc Edmund Jones, but as I threw out his book last year, I can't check that one. I don't think it was a deliberate decision but an attempt at a synonym. Nevertheless the effect is to declare the chart unfit to read.
I think Frawley is wrong, historically about Astrologers being afraid of the wrath of kings and needing a 'get out' clause. Sahl doesn't refer to Considerations, from memory, other than to know your client's intentions in asking the question. He certainly mentions some of what became the considerations and then strictures, such as malefics in the Ascendant and the angles, the Moon void of course and the Ascendant in the last degree(s) of a sign (he argues that in the last degree of the sign, the strength has already departed the sign (note this is nothing to do with the accuracy of calculation but a claim that the 29th degree of itself is powerless).
But, from memory, he never says you shouldn't proceed to judge the chart, or even consider these factors before giving judgement. It seems you incorporate these points into your judgement. By Lilly's time these points seem to have been firmed up into the considerations and I doubt Lilly thought anything about the views of the King (or the Lord Protector) as he worked for clients in the same way as modern Astrolgoers do.
Somewhere in the transmission - possibly through Bonatti's translation either directly or indirectly - the idea grew that these Considerations had to be done before the judgement, not as part of it.
Personally, when reading here, I do take the considerations into account and may decide not to read. The reason for that is that I can't have a consultation as Lilly or even Sue Ward or John Frawley would have. The latter two might take phone or internet questions but the would spend quite some time making sure they understand the intentions of the querent in asking the question. I've been caught out two or three times by taking a question literally and not interrogating the querent thoroughly.