Service headings, kiosks and moment credits

Both remaining choices answered on 5 October 2026. Discipline and the two Interactive Kiosk entrances are accepted. Moment-credit capability was already approved and is not a new decision. The recorded decisions now govern. The questions, evidence and alternatives below preserve what was reviewed; no answer is needed again.

Recorded answers

Choice	Recommendation
Middle level under Services	Call it Discipline. Keep Service at the top and Craft at the specific skill level, as already decided.
Interactive Kiosk in the type list	Give it a primary home under Interactive & Digital Experience and also list it under Retail & Commerce. Both entries lead to the same type. The second entrance does not make every kiosk retail work.

Joe accepted Discipline and explicitly confirmed both kiosk entrances. Exact craft definitions and contribution roles remain separate review work.

Answers carried forward

Services describe broad areas of work a client can commission. Craft names identify specific skills with written definitions. You already chose those two names; the middle level is now confirmed as Discipline.

Headings organize the type list. A heading is not another mandatory label on every piece. Multiple legitimate relationships can lead to the same content, but that earlier decision did not settle whether a type itself can appear under several headings.

A photograph and the work it depicts stay distinct and linked when evidence supports the connection. Likewise, recognizing animation in a moment does not identify its animator. Observable craft and a person's or studio's credit answer different questions.

1. Call the middle level Discipline?

Recommendation: use Service → Discipline → Craft. For example, Creative Production is the service, Animation is the discipline, and Character Animation is a craft. This path follows your earlier example and the selected current vocabulary relationships. It is a browsing and explanation structure, not a claim that every craft can have only one parent.

Counterexample: a director credit answers who did a job. It is not automatically a craft classification of the visible result. Likewise, a visual technique is not an extra tier below every craft. Earlier wording that placed Execution beneath this tree should not be carried forward as a fourth level.

Alternative: call the middle level Group. That is simpler but says less about the professional area represented by Animation, Photography or Design. Discipline provides a useful name across the reference, filters and explanations.

Downstream: Docs, navigation and filter labels should agree. Processing should still apply the specific craft's definition at the appropriate scope. This choice does not approve every entry, move existing skills, change stored identifiers or prescribe the physical hierarchy implementation.

2. Where should Interactive Kiosk appear?

Recommendation: one type, with two entrances in the type list. Its primary home is Interactive & Digital Experience. Also list it under Retail & Commerce so someone exploring shopping experiences can find it. A visitor arriving through that heading must still be able to distinguish retail examples from other uses.

Checked example: the McDonald's Għargħur visitor guide, page 8, explicitly describes self-ordering kiosks and distinguishes them from the counter and mobile app. The guide's text was inspected. It is evidence of a physical ordering experience, not a claim that its PDF is itself an interactive kiosk.

Counterexample: Cooper Hewitt's historical digital visitor experience describes interactive collection tables in a museum. These tables are not being relabeled as kiosks here; they show why physical interactive experiences should not all live under commerce. A passive screen showing a loop also does not become an interactive kiosk simply because it is in a shop.

Alternative: list Interactive Kiosk only under Interactive & Digital Experience, with retail discovery provided through context filters and related links. This keeps one home per type but requires an equally visible route from retail. The original review offered either heading without a preference; the two-entrance recommendation was accepted on 5 October.

Downstream: cross-listing must reuse the same type identity, definition and results. It must not duplicate content, imply that every instance is retail, or make the classifier infer placement from a heading. The later schema review must check heading membership and how browsing rules carry into saved trackers. This settles this type's placement only, not every type's secondary headings.

Moment credits — already approved; no answer needed

Correction, 5 October: your July answer already required contributor relationships for animation moments inside a video, alongside contributions to pieces and campaigns. The recovered decision records that scope. I missed this answer when preparing the new question. You do not need to approve the capability again.

Keep the credited person or organization, their role, the scope of the contribution and its source together. Leave an unknown interval or contributor unknown. Whether the same role names cover every scope, or whether some moment-specific roles are needed, remains a vocabulary question; the earlier answer does not settle it.

Checked example: Studio Dumbar's DevDay case study identifies collaboration with OpenAI's design studio and describes several kinds of output. The page's project-level wording does not identify a named individual responsible for a particular video interval. That is a useful boundary: project context can remain visible without inventing a moment credit.

Illustrative positive case: if an animator's own breakdown explicitly identifies the sequence they animated, preserve that source and connect the credit to the matching moment after checking the sequence. This is a proposed acceptance case, not a claim that such a breakdown has already been collected and verified for DevDay.

Counterexample: a studio made the installation shown in a photograph. That does not make the studio the photographer. A whole-film director credit can be shown as parent context, but it should not silently become separate evidence that the director personally animated a logo interval.

The earlier allow-or-defer question is withdrawn. This does not reopen or defer your approved capability, nor does it approve the new proposal to use shared role names.

Downstream: collection needs to retain the attribution source and its scope. Validation must distinguish stated contribution from visual classification; prompts must not guess people from style. Search and cited answers must say whether a credit concerns the project, the piece or the moment. Corrections, merges, revised interval boundaries and reanalysis must preserve evidence and human changes. The capability is approved; physical storage, role vocabulary and automatic extraction still need verification.

What remains open

Audit every service, discipline and craft definition and its relationships. The accepted level names do not certify the existing tree. Keep company type and offered services separate from what the evidence shows in a piece. A lead creative agency, live-action production company, animation studio and media buyer can have different contribution scopes in the same campaign. A project credit must not silently become a credit for every interval.

The evidence note separates earlier rulings, current selected system checks and proposed improvements. The selected credit paths need a complete compatibility audit before implementation. No schema, data, prompt, API or automation setting changes follow from these answers alone.

Other heading memberships, the broader identity lists, individual craft definitions and classification merges remain in the review plan. Existing pending questions will not be sent again.

Prepared 4 October; corrected 5 October 2026.

The review date below records a consistency check against the linked decisions and evidence. It does not change the dates or limits of the source inspections, or certify the complete database and pipeline.

Last reviewed 5 October 2026.