Okay, let us dissect this logically. We argue that Satu cannot be awarded the Being Tarot Award.
Let
T be a logical predicate such that T(X) is true if and only if X is Tarot. In other words, T is the Tarotness predicate. Let
S be Satu; we are therefore interested in the value of T(S).
Now, it can be said that Satu is either Tarot or isn't, so T(S) OR (NOT T(S)). More strictly, T(S) XOR (NOT T(S)) as we cannot envision Satu being and not being Tarot at the same time.
If NOT(T(S)), the proof is trivial. If Satu isn't Tarot, she can't get the Being Tarot Award as BTA(X) if and only if X = Tarot.
Now, if T(S) is true, and Satu is indeed Tarot... let us reconsider our hypotheses.
Tarot is logical and mathmatical, Satu is wildly emotional.
Tarot plans and schemes, Satu reacts to the moment.
Tarot is a super genius with computers, Satu is... not. (read technical idiot).
Tarot is Italian, Satu is blonde (new development).
The established pattern is "Tarot is X, Satu is not X", or Tarot(X) if and only if NOT Satu(X) for all properties X in our domain. Let X be the property "has the Being Tarot Award" (BTA). Hence, Tarot(BTA) -> NOT Satu(BTA). But Tarot(BTA) is true, as seen in the sidebar to this very post. Hence, if Satu = Tarot, then NOT Satu(BTA): the lack of BTA would be further proof that she IS Tarot.
Hopefully this cleared things up.