Physical work and signage — evidence

Approval recorded, 5 October 2026: all 3 recommendations on the review page were accepted. The preparation and consistency notes below are historical evidence, not current pending status. This update records meanings only; it does not repeat the live probes or certify implementation.

Bounded preparation, 5 October 2026. Three proposed choices: N-10/installation, R-06/retail-signage and R-07/digital-signage. The original bundles remain preserved and incomplete. No new answer is inferred.

History and prior decisions

Read the original naming and retail cards, the two August 16 source dictations, the current Content pillar, Brand & Identity extraction, approved type-list record, current retail review and its evidence. Searched the ruling and answer records for Installation, Booth Piece, Signage and related names. The approved historical list includes Booth / Installation Piece; this review concerns its residual naming and boundary, not whether physical work belongs in the library. The slash-cleanup proposal was never a blanket approval of equivalence: the later Interview/Q&A and Course/Lesson answers already demonstrate that distinction.

The endcap difference, photographs versus depicted work, useful parts, original media and evidenced shared project relationships are approved. They are carried forward. The later 5 October replies settled R-01's display naming, R-03's kiosk heading and R-07's Shoppable distinction. Complete displays keep recognizable types and separate location; one Interactive Kiosk type has primary Interactive & Digital Experience and secondary Retail & Commerce entrances; Shoppable describes evidenced interaction. These answers are linked from the current reader review and are not resent. The larger original bundles are not thereby fully answered. Other retail candidates and promotional-banner wording remain open or require prior-decision reconciliation. Environmental identity-element rows remain proposals; they do not automatically approve Signage as a piece type.

Inspected examples

The Pentagram Mercury page was opened in the browser, its project description expanded, and its main photograph viewed. It identifies an exhibition booth at RetailNOW. The photograph shows a designed spatial structure with screens and visitor workstations. It does not identify every component's original media or demonstrate motion. The supplied source is external evidence, not a newly ingested library item.

The Studio Dumbar DevDay page was read in the browser. Its current wayfinding image was opened and viewed: blue bracket-shaped structures carry destination information in an outdoor setting. The page also uses phone-booth language, which is a useful counterexample to treating every booth as an exhibition stand. No phone-booth interaction or motion interval was verified. The old photograph/original-video pair remains unproven; co-location on a page cannot supply that relationship.

The December 2024 IAB/IAB Europe retail-media PDF was opened and its existing page-27 render visually inspected. It depicts a screen in a kiosk and a screen in an aisle. Text separates screen inventory, placement zones and creative units. This is a dated measurement reference, not a universal creative taxonomy or a claim to the latest edition. Playback and interaction were not tested. Tate's installation-art page returned 403 and is not relied on as definition evidence.

Selected live and local evidence

Literal SQL and responses are in physical-work-live-evidence.json. Column inspection preceded the selected queries. The registry name-pattern query returned Installation Designer as a credit role and AR / Installation as a visual cue. The matching alias query returned no rows. Neither result proves that physical-work concepts or equivalent relationships are absent throughout the database.

The source-pattern content query returned nineteen DevDay records: a narrative, photographs and video records with differing stored types. The wayfinding record has content_type=event_photo and content_format=image. It supports discussing a current photo record, not proof of a persisted depicted-sign identity or link. The selected Mercury URL pattern returned no content row. Record titles and assigned types are stored assertions, not independently inspected semantics for all nineteen items.

The local post-processor's scalar list includes content_type; its vocabulary and approved-alias loaders were read. The complete local build-content-query.ts was read, including filtering content_items by content_type. These consumers show why new names require coordinated writer, validator and query review. They do not prove deployed behavior, multiple-type support or correct relationship handling. No production write, new analysis run, complete constraint audit or live saved-filter test occurred.

Architecture pressure test

Retaining the old automatic Installation/Booth alias hides meaningful differences. Flattening everything to Image or Video instead hides the physical work that a capture documents. The recommendation selectively distinguishes the spatial work, complete booth, sign, media component and evidence capture, applying the existing whole/part and depiction decisions.

Do not solve physical-work identity by calling its photograph a physical media file. The captured file's format and the depicted work's nature answer different questions. The comprehensive audit must reconcile the current five-format explanation and the historical physical-work type list through actual storage and consumers. This packet does not approve a sixth capture format, an invented storage table or a workaround field.

For each relationship, verify its direction and multiplicity: a photograph can show several pieces; several photographs can show one piece; an installation can use several media components; one component can be used in several installations. A shared project, source page or brand is not proof of any specific edge. Named entities, products and campaigns keep their independent evidence, as do authorship and contributor roles.

The full trace must cover source discovery, capture, identification of depicted work, composed prompts, validation, writes, publication observations, query results, trackers and citations. Check keys, data types, required values, uniqueness, junctions, indexes, correction ownership, merges and permissions only against live schema and actual consumers. Define work/version/appearance boundaries for reused structures and redesigned components before repair.

Exercise: a photographed sign with no original design file; a booth containing a sign and video; a phone booth unrelated to an exhibition stand; a static image shown on a digital screen; a changed playlist observed later; the same artwork used at two events; an unavailable original asset with a surviving permitted photograph. The user should be able to inspect the exact evidence and return to the collection without duplicate work or false certainty. Monitoring should add dated evidence and preserve human corrections, not silently revise prior captures or infer an ongoing installation from an old photograph.

Completion limits

The recommendations are product-model choices, not conclusions mandated by an external standard. Signage heading placement, the broader environmental vocabulary, every other retail candidate and full physical-storage architecture remain separately tracked. Existing pending choices and partial answers are preserved. Full Docs reconciliation, system verification, implementation and product acceptance remain open.

Prepared 5 October 2026.

Decision-consistency update — 5 October 2026

Reconciled the current reader page with the recorded retail and kiosk approvals. Its three physical-work recommendations remain pending and unchanged. The earlier source inspections and selected system checks above retain their original scope; no new database or deployed-behavior verification occurred in this update.