Open questions — the review agenda

Start with the revised review plan. The current reset reconciles every planned sitting and the additional classification, identity, relationship and definition reviews. The approved plan reviews decisions in dependency order, followed by the complete technical audit. The original product scope remains intact.

Your current review

The prepared morning packets are answered. The latest approval settles both feature-comparison choices. Event Recap remains approved. The preceding five settle podcast episodes and brand stories, plus books, one-pagers and speaker cards. Broader bundles stay partial where individual entries have not been reviewed.

Both product-feature choices are approved. Finding and comparing product features records supported category overlap and selective, defined capability comparisons. Preserve source wording, bundles and evidence. Exact vocabulary and implementation still need verification.

The graphics review now includes the requested website and section check. Images, sections and where they appear connects complete-page types, section descriptions and image, video or text content. All four current recommendations are now approved. Earlier first-three filter proposals remain superseded history; Digital Wallpaper is a searchable intended use. Full section vocabulary and implementation remain to verify.

The review desk keeps all 19 packets visible: all answered. The answered Event Recap choice, Corporate Film and remaining definition/promotion work are additional. Answered pages are under Recorded reviews; earlier walks are retained separately. The next work recovers original scope and audits relationships before preparing any smaller naming questions. This does not establish completion of the database and pipeline audit.

The product-use choice is approved. Using a product and handling it includes deliberate handling and adjustment as well as operation. The product-role distinction is already approved; existing assignments are not presumed equivalent.

Current work: perform the top-to-bottom model and roadmap checkpoint. Reconcile every current explanation, machine-readable decision, vocabulary source and navigation entry, then discuss the highest-impact gaps before revising the plan.

One repeated heading question is removed from the answer queue. The older umbrella names do not need a second decision about where headings belong. Exact heading names and memberships remain separate. The old social proposal remains partial; its proposed new types are not approved as a bundle, and the already-approved Reaction Video does not wait for it.

All available reviews and recently recorded decisions

• Just recorded: Source products and complete web pages — answered. Source and subject have separate evidenced browsing paths. Earlier document-part, photograph and strategy answers carry forward.

• Approved process and priorities: Finish the Docs review — revised plan. Execution has started; no new taxonomy answer is inferred from the plan.

• Recorded this morning: video, advertising, sponsorship and Offer. All four explicit choices are accepted; exact mappings and implementation remain open. Event Recap is also answered.

• Already recorded: Interview with Q&A presentation, and distinct Course/Lesson meanings. Both are answered; their physical storage remains to verify.

• Answered: Finding moments by shot and by story. Keep the group, show the entrance, and separate framing from activity and story. Exact vocabulary remains open.

• Answered: Names and a home for motion. All three choices accepted; identity elements and implementation remain open.

• Answered: Displays, complete pages and shopping interactions. All three choices accepted; the complete retail list and distribution mapping still need audit.

• Answered naming review: Podcast episodes and brand stories. Both recommendations accepted: preserve episode excerpts and distinguish an origin-focused narrative from every brand story. The other naming pairs and individual definitions remain open.

• Answered: Service headings, kiosks and moment credits. Discipline and both kiosk entrances accepted. Moment-credit capability remains approved; exact roles, vocabulary entries and implementation stay open.

• Recovered approval: Format, production and distribution remain separate. The standalone Production Form rename question is withdrawn; mapping legacy data and consumers remains implementation work.

• Recovered naming rule: Different lists may share a name when their meanings differ. The blanket unique-word question is withdrawn. Reveal, Demo and Transformation still need their individual definitions checked; the shot and story structure is now answered; individual definitions remain open.

• Answered: Chat, analysis and named features. Both task/participation distinctions are accepted. Product-feature categories, names and specific evidence remain a required audit, not a new blanket vocabulary approval.

• Answered additions review: Books, short overviews and speaker cards. Three accepted meanings separate complete publications, concise overviews and finished graphics. The other four additions have their own review below; Template is already approved.

• Answered graphics review: Images, sections and where they appear. Three choices connect assets to email, article and social context. Digital Wallpaper is approved as intended use. No storage change is approved.

• Answered physical-work review: Installations, exhibition booths and signs. All three accepted: distinguish complete spaces, signs and screen presentations. Approved photograph, original-asset and shared-project relationships stay settled.

• Answered visual-identity review: Color themes, gradients, shapes and brand characters. All four accepted: distinguish reusable identity elements from appearances in individual pieces. The rest of the identity vocabulary remains open.

• Answered verbal-identity review: Voice, messages and naming. All three recommendations accepted: distinguish general voice from contextual tone, message ideas from exact taglines, and naming rules from terminology. Source strategy versus interpretation stays settled; the remaining strategy and identity entries stay open.

• Answered strategy review: Purpose, values and promises. All three recommendations accepted: preserve source statement names, distinguish stated values from behavior, and compare Brand Promise with Value Proposition. The approved source/work relationship is carried forward; remaining strategy definitions stay open.

• Next preparation: remaining activity descriptions, heading memberships and definition batches. Some sampled media frames do not match their stored descriptions, so those assignments cannot establish valid merges. The morning review desk keeps each packet and its remaining work visible.

• Answered digital-identity review: Design systems across websites and apps. Both accepted: shared system meaning with platform scope and a searchable Responsive Layout Rules description. The approved evidence distinctions stay settled; the environment and icon/component meanings are also now approved. Exact vocabulary and implementation remain open.

• Answered environment review: Graphics and design in physical spaces. All four recommendations accepted. They describe the designed work without assuming its setting proves identity-system membership or authorship. Photograph and source-evidence relationships stay settled; physical types and storage remain separate.

• Answered icon and component review: App icons and interface components. Both recommendations accepted. They separate app identity from interface symbols and make component examples findable. Icon System is already approved; exact component vocabulary and implementation remain separate.

• Answered interactive heading review: Finding interactive experiences. The approved types share the Interactive & Digital Experience browsing entrance. It corrects the older card's database premise without reopening type-name approval or claiming interactive capture and analysis work.

• Answered company-type review: Where music labels belong. The accepted recommendation applies the company model to labels while keeping specific business relationships evidenced separately. General company/type approval stays settled; incompatible creation choices remain an implementation finding.

The intake counts are coverage measures, not a count of questions ready to answer. Original cards can contain outdated recommendations. Use the current review links above; the material below is retained for traceability.

Earlier agenda, completed reviews and historical questions

These are the things the model does not yet decide. They live here, and not on the model pages, for one reason: a model page has to be true now, so that anyone — a person or a machine — can build on it without checking whether each sentence is a rule or a musing. A question is by definition not yet true, so it belongs on its own surface with its own lifecycle.

Nothing here retires without being ruled on. When one is settled, the answer is written into the model page and the question moves to decided with its date and reasoning. That is the whole loop.

---

Where the review stands

All twenty-five numbered questions are ruled — fourteen at round 1 (4 August 2026), the rest plus the three preliminary calls at round 2 (10 August 2026). Every ruling lives on the decided page with its reasoning, so nothing gets re-argued from memory.

Beyond the numbered questions, round 2 also settled five standing rules:

Ruled	In one line
This surface wins	when a spec and this decision surface disagree, this surface wins
Campaign is a container	a campaign holds pieces; it is never a lens you classify against
The grouping kinds	campaign · brand-identity collection · project · event/season
Vendor work is first-class	studio and agency case studies are collected like brand work
Scope is wide	offline placement, geography & language, and reception are all in

Closed threads keep their old names for traceability: the standing inter-entity edge thread (companies relate — ruled at question 4) · the content_region thread (a moment is video-only — question 11) · the Signal/Temporal thread (timing serves the pillars — question 13).

---

What is awaiting your mark, in order

Interviews and learning are answered. The recorded decisions keep Interview as a type with searchable Q&A presentation and distinguish Course from Lesson. These answers settle two parts of the naming batch; storage and the remaining pairs stay open.

The foundations sitting is answered. Content types, groupings, type-list headings and distribution stay separate, without a mandatory content-category parent. Headings stay on the type list. Captured pages remain accessible inside their document, with selected useful parts independently browsable. A photograph links directly to the piece it depicts. The decisions and reasoning are now part of the model.

Sitting 11 is answered. The recorded answers establish guided library entrances, separately browsable versions, several genuine whole-piece types with one leading, and defined moment filters alongside rich descriptions. Product identity was already settled. The original sitting remains a historical review page, not a request to answer again.

Sitting 10 is answered. The recorded decisions use User Story as the shared name, preserve the endcap distinction, separate object kind from gifting, keep product appearance separate from role, and allow campaigns without a planned ending. Photographs and independently collected original media must stay connected when evidence supports the relationship. Ongoing campaign monitoring remains a workflow requirement. The original sitting preserves the questions you answered; it is not a request to approve them again.

Historical checkpoint, superseded on 5 October by the recorded follow-up answers. Sitting 2 previously had a partial response. Campaign membership replaces Campaign Film. That choice is settled. The next three choices now ask about Brand Film and Product Film, Commercial and Promotional Ad, and Sponsored Content. Each has a recommendation, example and alternative. The Offer follow-up remains a separate pending question. The original sitting preserves what you were asked; its recommendations are not all approved.

Use review time for decisions, then complete the deeper audit. Before each batch, recover prior answers and check evidence that could change your choice. Record each new answer immediately and update affected guidance. The comprehensive page, schema, prompt and pipeline audit follows the decision pass; it may return specific conflicts for review. Schema changes, data corrections and reanalysis come after verified implementation contracts. A technical defect that does not change the meaning should not delay the next question.

The vocabulary reference preserves wording from the database extract. That wording may lag behind approved decisions or an open definition review. In particular, its “long-form” description of Brand Film is not an approved minimum duration. Its advertisement guidance still mentions Performance Ad, which the recorded decision removed. Those discrepancies require a verified data-path repair; the review does not certify the full architecture or existing classifications.

Earnings Release and Annual Report are answered. The recorded decisions accept both types under Corporate Communication. Earnings Release stays findable with press releases; a notice linking to results keeps its own form. Investor Report is not automatically Annual Report. The checked review record is context, not a request to answer again. Implementation remains to verify.

The website address stays unchanged. On 4 October, Joe chose to defer the move to a Docs subdomain and prioritize these reviews. Continue using the current hosted address.

Event Recap is answered. The recorded approval distinguishes an edited summary across media from a complete talk, a photograph and the event that gathers them. Event Photo remains separately approved. Existing Event Film and Event Coverage assignments still need individual checks; no blanket relabeling is approved.

Reports, list-based articles and reaction videos are answered. The decision record keeps Trend Report distinct, makes Listicle searchable as article structure, and recognizes Reaction Video as a whole-piece type. Research Report remains approved. Corporate Film stays with the pending video discussion; the earlier bundled question is only partly settled. Implementation and browsing headings remain separate.

The bounded local layout comparison is implemented, but no final composition has been selected. Further layout expansion is on hold while the outstanding Docs meanings and database relationships take priority. The larger research experience remains in the same plan.

The updated foundations explanation preserves the separation you approved in the recorded decisions. The original sitting stays unchanged as the page you answered. Heading names, non-video part naming, exact routing and implementation remain later work. Each answer must be checked through the stored relationships, prompts, pipeline writes and reads, and then the collection grid, viewer and scoped questions. The larger tracker, board, reel and reusable layout work remains part of that same task.

The older agenda below remains a record awaiting reconciliation, not a second review order. Earlier rulings must be checked before any of its questions is asked again. Its dated measurements need fresh verification before guiding implementation. Older instructions to let a proposal stand or execute an unstruck row do not make silence an approval. Use only the next reconciled sitting for new answers; leave anything uncertain open. Nothing on this page changes the database merely by being written down. Ratified rows are context, not requests to approve the same decision again.

#	What you are being asked	Where it lives today	What a mark looks like
1	The content-type FAMILY layer — the types stand; the family names above them are the open call. Nine numbered proposals; the naming picks, the Retail & Commerce expansion, and the Brand & Identity summary all sit on the one review surface	the recommendation — start here, with the reconciliation page and schema view behind it	mark the page top to bottom; proposals 1–9 close on the reconciliation page
2	The eight open calls on the classification schema — a name collision, four subject-words, an empty group, dissolving the Shot Types group, a stranded pricing value, three same-idea pairs, three details that duplicate framing, and words shared across axes	the proposed classification schema	pick one option per numbered call; strike anything you disagree with
3	The first promotion round — 64 moment-detail values that clear the five-use floor (these are moment details, unrelated to the content types in item 1), 76 spellings folding into them, and 2 that are really shelf names	the promotion list	strike any line; explicit approval required before implementation
4	Eight further proposals on the schema page that are not numbered calls — the family renames, subject scope, flattening a nested shelf, the typography sub-splits, tier becoming a visibility label, two detail retirements, an unused entity kind, and occasion storage	the proposed classification schema	explicitly approve, amend or leave open
5	Product appearance and role — settled on 4 October	Recorded decision	no new answer; exact vocabulary and implementation remain later work
6	Three axes written on every classified moment that no vocabulary governs — raised 11 August 2026 (below)	this page	defined filters and reviewed new terms are settled; review the exact vocabulary
7	Where people start browsing products — the entity identity and attached product details were already approved in July; only navigation remains open	the earlier product decision, then the explanation below	review the concrete journey; guided product and company entrances are now approved
8	Service → Discipline → Craft — answered 5 October	Recorded decision	no new naming answer; audit every definition and relationship separately
9	The per-shot crew-role vocabulary	this page	rule the sub-thread, or park it deliberately
10	The definitions themselves — most values in the registry have no written definition at all, and the ones the crafts carry are the exception rather than the rule	the vocabulary reference	strike or amend any drafted definition; the rest becomes a queue
11	The Brand & Identity review — the extraction you ordered at the second round: the shelf's piece types (with proposed aliases) and the identity-element vocabulary in seven groups, read from your named sources with live confirmation	the Brand & Identity review	strike or amend any row; the new-flagged elements are the additive part

---

Still open

(Q10 — the open detail level — was ruled on 10 August 2026, after the round-2 pass: harvest-then-promote. It has moved to decided; the first promotion list comes back as a short review. Every numbered question, Q1–Q25, is now ruled.)

The per-shot crew-role vocabulary (carried sub-thread of Q16)

The July contribution approval already requires credits for particular moments. The residual question concerns exact role names and whether a separate moment-role vocabulary is needed. It is not a question about allowing the capability. The repeated allow-or-defer question is withdrawn.

Raised with the Groupings chapter (10 August 2026, then titled "Works & Groupings")

The names of content-type families 9 and 10 (superseded 13 August — the whole family layer was re-opened at the final walk, see the next section; this narrower question now rides inside that one). The ratified master list left exactly one thing open at the time: what the two families covering visual & identity assets and event, retail & interactive work are called. The types inside them bind already.

The classification schema, whole — the marking surface. Joe's call at the review: mark the full taxonomy in one view rather than flat lists. The proposed classification schema draws everything — every grain, every axis, the whole moments tree with the promotion round placed in it — with eight numbered open calls awaiting his picks. The promotion list is the detailed record behind its moments section; a proposal needs explicit approval before implementation.

Raised at the final walk (13 August 2026)

The content-type family layer is re-opened. Joe flagged the ten family names as wrong at the walk, and the source check proved him right on every point. The short version:

• The ten family names came from a machine recommendation pasted forward from his own planning document — the types were ratified name by name; the families above them never were.
• His own ratified July model already carries a different top carve: the five-pillar output axis (brand identity & systems · campaigns · content · digital products & experiences · physical products & experiences) — never folded into the content pages.
• So the job is a reconciliation, not an invention — and the reconciliation surface is built: both carves side by side, every ratified type placed under every option, a script guarding the count.
• His standing instructions for that surface: show the full re-cut before any top-carve decision · genre rides the planned creative-classification review, never a new axis now · push back honestly wherever an org-chart instinct would encode team structure or duplicate a container fact.

(The "Performance ad contradicts a ruled split" defect this walk raised was RULED on 16 August — re-homed onto ownership, placement and ad format; on decided.)

Two small legibility fixes owed: the whole-schema page's map should say it draws the four grains, not the model pillars, so a reader does not look for products or concepts on it; and every review page must state that ratified rows are context, with responses wanted only on open calls and proposals.

Raised at the consolidation round (17 August 2026)

Joe's dictation, banked verbatim the same day (docs/reference/2026-08/2026-08-17/consolidation-round-notes.md). What it opened and ordered:

• One review surface — the recommendation page carried the whole review in reading order (ruled, on decided). From 25 August to 7 September the walk happened on the review pack — one page per section, every decision with its own answer line. It produced no decisions in twelve days, so on 7 September Joe picked a new layout: the hybrid — three to five decisions on one page, all asking the same kind of question, each answerable without opening anything, with the pieces and the numbers one click away. The pack's pages stay exactly as they are until he retires them; the recommendation page remains the full record behind everything.
• The film pressure test — his "Film implies video" worry, tested type by type on the recommendation page's naming section; his "-Content" suffix idea evaluated there honestly. His picks per row close it.
• Product Launch — he wants it distinct from Product Film; the naming section presents one medium-neutral Launch kind (what launched comes from the product link) versus a stored Product Launch type. His pick.
• The Works rename — "Works" rejected in his words; the pillar is now Groupings, taken on his lean, awaiting his glance.
• Sidebar findability — every review page now lives in a collapsed In-review group; the writing standard carries the rule. Ruled, on decided.
• The pipelines section — ordered: have-versus-need pages built on a verified audit of the pipeline spec against the live code, plus spec-shaped pages for the unbuilt pipelines (brand onboarding · campaign · continuous monitoring). In build this round.
• The style loop — every review round re-reads every page against the writing standard. Ruled, on decided.

Raised at the best-practices round (17 August 2026)

A second research pass (the research extension, banked 17 August) ran on your steer — how mature organizations run big reviews, the identity/retail/naming gaps, and how the best documentation sites stay correct. Every claim was gathered live with a quoted source and spot-checked by a second adversarial pass; the plain-language digest is the best-practices evidence page, and what it changed on the review surfaces is already in place there. The same round built the walk console — every open decision as a mark-able card. That console is now a record only (25 August): you answer on the review pack, in chat, one line per decision. Things the round raised for you:

• Two boundary notes on the naming section — Promotional Ad vs Key Visual, and Sponsored Content as a deal-versus-kind question — each stated with its alternative; no change without your mark.

• ✅ A last-reviewed stamp on every ratified page — RULED AND DONE, 4 September 2026. His words: "just do it". Every model and decision page now carries the date it was last read, and a check reads them. It fails on a page that was edited after its stamp — a stamp older than the text is a lie about the text — and it reports, without failing, the pages nobody has looked at in ninety days or more. It does not fail on the calendar, because a gate that does is satisfied by re-stamping without re-reading, which makes every stamp a lie.

• The retail zones tension is now on the Retail table itself — the industry's in-store standard carves store placements as zones and keeps piece kinds smaller (shelf talker, floor graphic, screen); the table's pick now shows that evidence beside the recommendation so you rule with it in view.

Raised at the second reconciliation round (16 August 2026, fresh window)

Joe resumed the walk and dictated a round banked verbatim the same day (docs/reference/2026-08/2026-08-16/brand-identity-retail-round-notes.md). Ruled parts are on decided; these are the threads it opened:

• The identity shelf is named "Brand & Identity" (ruled), and the identity extraction is running: the unique classifications get extracted and reviewed from the sources he named — his brand-identity spreadsheet, the GitHub Brand Guidelines 2025 book, the OpenAI guideline pages, the motion-identity framework, plus a search for the rest. The review keeps piece TYPES and identity ELEMENTS as separate strata; the extraction ran the same day and its candidates are on the Brand & Identity review, awaiting his marks (agenda item 11).
• The Retail & Commerce expansion. He called the shelf starved — missing ecommerce and the physical retail kinds. His seed lines, verbatim: "Retail & PDP — Best Buy endcaps, PDPs, in-store displays, POP" and "Packaging & Physical — Unboxing, retail packaging, printed materials." More reference files are coming from him; his old content-types list is a named seed source. Every candidate lands as a PROPOSE row, never a silent merge.
• Digital Product placement — a new open question. Where does content scraped FROM a digital product live (the ChatGPT iOS app, the web app — screens we collect and classify)? A proposal with a recommendation goes on the reconciliation surface; his mark decides.
• The channel CSV parked. His channel/touchpoint/platform spreadsheet is "for later for channels etc" — it joins the channel-stack thread, not this round.
• The Fable loop is the lane's operating process for extraction work (his call, same round): the strong model does judgment, specs and re-probes; cheap agents do the sweeps with structured output; an adversarial pass checks before anything ships. The process doc lives at docs/reference/FABLE-LOOP-PROCESS-01.md.

Raised at the schema-view review (16 August 2026)

Joe reviewed the schema view and raised six threads, banked verbatim the same day (docs/reference/2026-08/2026-08-16/schema-view-walk-notes.md):

• ✅ The rename — RULED, 4 September 2026, and mostly done. His words: "you can rename the site thats fine", answering his own thread of 16 August — "our atlas which we should really just rename as our brandtrackers docs… done whenever it makes sense". The title, the front door's language and the footer are changed. The address it is hosted at is deliberately not changed yet — that needs a domain change and a routing rule, and doing it while the review is the only thing he is reading would break the surface he reads it on. One line at a promote, on his word. He attached a second thing to the same answer, and that is done too: the site no longer opens on a landing page. It opens on the overview, inside the docs, with the sidebar — "we dont need an unnessecary landing page … so were not jumping in and out of the docs it feels like".
• Slash-separated alternatives must be resolved into clear names. This naming rule is recorded with its reasoning; individual naming choices still need review. Joe said, "we should never have like slashes or things like that in our data ontology taxonomy." The ratified type list currently has slashed entries (manifesto / anthem film · commercial / spot · interview / Q&A · offer / promotion · lesson / course · brand story / origin story). Each one resolves one of three ways — one value with a clean display name, two separate values, or one value plus an alias — and that cleanup list rides the value migration when the family ruling lands.
• The decision gallery. Before ruling the top carve he wants to SEE what he is deciding between — "actual use case examples or what does the vocabulary page for this look like eventually" — one preview per option, not more argument. Built the same day: the gallery — five previews, each carrying every ratified type (64 after the 16 August rulings, 69 since 11 September) with live counts, the three use cases, and the literal per-piece tags.
• The content-category page's fate — DONE the same day. The generated page now opens by explaining that its question is deprecated and where each of its values went (campaign kinds to the grouping, the program to marketing intent, the job to content role); browser-verified.
• Plain speak, everywhere, as a stated rule. The writing standard currently binds the reader pages; Joe wants it stated for every surface of these docs — "embrace plain speak simple easy to understand approach to our writing for this atlas/docs always" — and the dense tables simplified. Same thread, the layout defect: wide tables cut off at the screen edge must never happen; a wide table scrolls inside its own container or gets redesigned narrower.
• Pipelines, canonically — with the daily-recognition pipeline named. Only the content pipeline exists. Missing, in his words: the entity/business-information pipeline, a campaigns pipeline for historical content, and a daily pipeline that watches incoming content after onboarding and "tries to see and or identify content that could be a campaign or some other grouping that we don't know about yet." This strengthens the already-ruled several-pipelines and daily-recognition decisions; the planned pipelines chapter must define all of them, existing and missing.

Raised at the recommendation walk (16 August 2026, later the same day)

Joe took the recommendation's mechanism — provisionally — and dictated his own shelf carve (banked verbatim: docs/reference/2026-08/2026-08-16/recommendation-carve-notes.md). New threads:

• His shelf carve, applied and awaiting his final word — Brand & Campaign (later shortened to just Campaign in his close amendments — the review surface uses the shortened name) · Product & Feature · Users & Customers (was Social proof) · Partnership & Creator · Education & Support · Corporate Communication · Documentation & Technical · Retail & Commerce vs Events & Experiential vs Interactive & Digital Experience (the old experiences family, split three ways) — with Advertising & Promotion and Brand Identity's internal depth flagged open by him (both since resolved: Advertising & Promotion was dissolved and the identity shelf named Brand & Identity in his close amendments — kept here only as the record of the round).
• Commercial vs Brand Film — his question ("are you saying commercials based on the channel?"). The older short-versus-long, offer-forward boundary was a recommendation, not an approved definition. Sitting 2 reviews the distinction without treating duration, an explicit offer or a paid appearance as sufficient on its own.
• The identity vocabulary review — brand identity is more than logos; his comprehensive element lists (lockups, wordmark, palette, typography — the brand-identity spreadsheet from July) feed a dedicated visual/verbal/strategic identity review; identity depth is its own queued item.
• Owned vs earned, answered in place — ownership (owned · paid · earned · partner) is its own axis, never a shelf; the recommendation preview shows his exact examples placed.
• Display naming rules — Title Case on every display name, always; no slash pairs (the resolve table with aliases is on the recommendation preview); and "film" flagged as a bygone-era word for the naming review (renaming ratified types is a deliberate pass, not a drive-by).

Inputs routed to LATER chapters from the adjudicated outside review (16 August 2026) — recorded here so the chapters inherit them instead of re-deriving:

• For the relationship-matrix chapter: typed edges between groupings. Never one generic "contains" edge that can point both directions — name the edges: an event hosts a campaign · a campaign activates at an event · a campaign produces an event · a project delivers an experience · a sponsorship connects a brand to a property. Prevents ambiguous nesting and accidental cycles.
• For the pipelines chapter: grain classifiers and candidate membership. A source decomposes into candidate objects (a vendor page can reveal a project, a client brand, a campaign, an event, ten image pieces and a case-study article — it is never asked to pick one category); separate classifiers per grain (grouping · piece · experience · rendition/appearance · moment); and campaign membership supports a candidate status with confidence and evidence, confirmed later — which is exactly how the ruled daily-recognition pipeline works (a campaign may only become visible after several pieces accumulate).
• For the definitions queue: the boundary terms. Each of these is a whole-piece kind ONLY when the named structure is the spine of the piece, otherwise it is a style, role, or moment: Documentary (else documentary-style treatment) · Interview (else an interview segment or talking-head shot) · Testimonial (else a proof role or testimonial moment) · Product Demo (else a demonstration moment) · Music Video (else music-video style) · User-Generated (else UGC-style treatment). These become the registry's confusable-with notes when the definitions are written.
• Customer Story and User Story — settled on 4 October. Use User Story as the shared name and Customer Story as an alternative search name. The recorded decision preserves the rationale. Boundaries with neighboring types still need definition examples.

Raised while building the vocabulary reference (11 August 2026)

Both of these came out of reading the live system rather than any document, and both continue the numbering the schema page uses.

Product appearance and role — separation approved on 4 October. Joe accepted keeping how the product appears separate from its role. The recorded decision supersedes the old merge proposal. Unexpected stored words still need a writer and history investigation, and exact definitions remain open. The original review stays available as history.

Product discovery now has an approved direction; layout remains to demonstrate. The July approval already settles the relationship: a product has its identity and family relationships in the entity graph, with an attached product-detail record. The old review card asked for that approval again; it remains unchanged as a historical record, but that part is no longer a question. The October browsing decision requires visible product and company entrances. The layout comparison will show those journeys instead of asking for this direction again. Family/model browsing and bundle membership remain different relationships. Verifying and repairing the database implementation is separate work, as explained on the Products page.

Service → Discipline → Craft — answered 5 October. The recorded answer names the middle level Discipline. Creative Production → Animation → Character Animation illustrates it. The complete vocabulary and every parent relationship remain audit work; the answer does not restore an extra Execution tier, approve all existing rows or restrict crafts to one parent. Changes to stored identifiers and processing remain separate implementation work.

Defined filters and open descriptions — direction settled on 4 October; exact vocabulary still open. The recorded answer settles the maintained-filter approach. The following observations describe the August snapshot, not a current database measurement. Alongside the registered axes, each classified moment also records an interest type (17 different words), a motion state (5) and a visual theme (550 different free-text phrases). None of the three has a single row in the registry, so nothing defines them, nothing validates them, and they cannot appear in any governed list. One word, kinetic_type, is being written as both an interest type and a motion state, which is the sort of drift a registry exists to prevent. Proposal: register interest type and motion state as real axes with written definitions, and treat visual theme as an open level like the moment detail level — harvested, then promoted once a value proves itself. The alternative is to stop writing them.

---

The two vocabularies — RATIFIED (10 August 2026, picks included)

Joe reviewed both proposal pages, then answered the three remaining picks the same day. The content-type master list is ratified — every type binds, and the family once called "Proof & advocacy" is now Social proof (his pick, made with the word-overlap flag in view; a family name never appears where channel values do — Joe's "content category" concern is answered on the page as the category-vs-type split). The channel stack is ratified — all fifteen quality-check items accepted and folded in (eleven added channels, four contradiction fixes), and the platform-to-entity link is confirmed (a platform's owner is also an entity; one link joins the two roles). What still travels forward: the names of content-type families 9 and 10 ride with the Groupings chapter, and the vocabulary migrations themselves are pipeline-lane build work.

---

What happens to a question

1. It gets ruled on, with reasoning.
2. The answer is written into the model page it affects — as a plain statement, not as "we decided".
3. The question moves to decided, dated, with the reasoning kept.
4. If the answer implies something must now be true of the data, it becomes a check on the conformance report so it cannot quietly stop being true.

Step 4 is the one that matters. A decision nobody can measure is a decision that will be re-litigated.

And the same lifecycle governs a proposal page. A "Proposed" page is temporary by design: once it is ratified, its content is built into the model section — plain statements on the model pages, values in the generated reference — and the proposal page retires, with every value re-checked against the live system at the moment it is folded in. Proposals never accumulate here. (The two ratified vocabulary pages are still up deliberately, not by neglect: their fold-in waits on the family ruling, because the family layer above their types is exactly what is being re-cut.)

Last reviewed 5 October 2026.

Earlier dated measurements remain historical.