Retail displays, complete pages and shopping interactions

Three choices answered on 5 October 2026. All three recommendations accepted. The recorded decisions now govern. The questions, evidence and alternatives below preserve what was reviewed; no answer is needed again.

Recorded answers

Choice	Recommendation
A designed display and its location	Keep recognizable kinds of complete display, alongside a separate location. A sign or video within that display keeps its own form. Keep a broad display description when the evidence cannot support a narrower one.
Product Detail Page	Use this as a type for a complete page focused on presenting a particular product for evaluation or purchase. Do not give that type to every image extracted from it.
Shoppable	Describe the shopping interaction available in a particular publication or experience. Keep the underlying piece's form and do not assume every copy offers that interaction.

Joe accepted each row. These choices do not approve the entire retail list, retire existing classifications or choose physical database columns.

Answers carried forward

Endcaps remain distinguishable from other aisle displays, with a shared entrance into in-store work. Photographs keep their own identity and can link to the work they depict. Independently collected original artwork can stay connected to the physical display and its photographs when evidence supports the relationship.

A complete page can already be a library piece. Its independently useful parts can also be browsed with links back. We are not asking you to choose between the whole page and its parts again.

Work can be reached through several legitimate relationships. That does not settle which heading contains the Interactive Kiosk type. The kiosk placement answer now gives the type two entrances, while distinguishing the type list from the paths used to find a particular piece. A museum kiosk should not acquire a retail relationship without evidence. We will not ask you to approve overlapping relationship paths again.

1. How should we name a display?

Recommendation: describe the designed display and record where it appears separately. A complete endcap display can retain that useful name. Its constituent poster, shelf graphic or video keeps its own form. The store, aisle, placement and dates describe the appearance; they do not replace the identity of each piece.

Use a broad display description when that is all the evidence supports. Do not force an unknown display into a precise subtype, or remove the broader word merely because more specific names exist. This is a description rule; the exact list of display types remains to be reviewed.

Checked example: the IAB and IAB Europe December 2024 standards show a screen within a kiosk and another screen above a store aisle on page 27. Their examples and store-zone sections distinguish formats from location. That supports keeping both questions available; a media-measurement standard does not dictate our complete creative-work taxonomy.

Counterexample: a poster photographed at the end of an aisle does not become the complete endcap display. Its photograph, the poster design and the assembled display may be related records. Evidence must identify the relationship; being collected from one page is insufficient.

Alternative: use one general display type and express every recognizable distinction through placement and construction filters. That can keep the type list smaller, but makes familiar display searches depend on combinations of other descriptions. Either approach must preserve your approved endcap-versus-aisle distinction.

Downstream: collectors must identify whether they captured an entire display, a component or a photograph. Classification needs that context. Results should explain whether the match is the work itself or a depiction of it. A display reused at several locations need not become several unrelated designs.

2. Should Product Detail Page be a type for the complete page?

Recommendation: yes. A Product Detail Page is a complete page primarily presenting a particular product, its relevant information and options so a person can evaluate or obtain it. It need not offer immediate checkout. Keep the source title and the product relationship; a page's type alone does not identify which product it concerns.

Checked example: Apple's Shop iPhone 17 page presents configurations and purchasing options for that product. Its page structure is a useful thing to compare with other product pages. An independently useful product image from it remains an image of the product, not another complete Product Detail Page.

Counterexample: Anthropic's account of Claude helping plan a Mars rover drive is organized as a story about that use. It is not a Product Detail Page simply because it discusses Claude or has a link to try the product. Two captured records used in the older review carry a product-detail label, but that stored label does not validate the example or justify retaining it.

Alternative: use a broader Web Page type and make product-detail purpose a defined searchable description. The same complete-page browsing can work that way. I recommend the explicit type because it describes a recognizable complete composition people want to research, rather than merely where another asset ran.

Downstream: distinguish the page's classification, an asset's placement on that page and the capture of either. A screenshot records a view; it does not prove that all interactions or page states were captured. Marketplace and app-store pages need their own boundary review, not an automatic rename under this answer.

3. Does Shoppable describe an interaction rather than a new form?

Recommendation: record the shopping interaction where it is available. A video, image or page can offer product selection, shopping tags or a route to purchase while retaining its own form. Record the evidenced product links, action and publication or experience that supplies them. A non-shopping copy of the same media must not inherit a claim that it is interactive.

Checked example: the Apple page above offers product configurations and purchasing links. Those controls belong to the page experience. Seeing a product photograph on that page does not establish that its original image file contains those controls. This review inspected the page's presented information; it did not complete a purchase.

Counterexample: text saying “Shop now” in a downloaded image is a call to action, but it does not prove that clicking the image opens a working shopping route. Likewise, a screenshot of a shopping tag documents an interaction that was shown; the screenshot itself may not provide it.

Alternative: keep Shoppable Content as a whole-piece type alongside Video, Product Demonstration or other descriptions. It gives shopping a prominent type filter, but mixes what the piece is with what a particular presentation lets someone do. The proposed interaction description can still support a visible Shoppable entrance without that ambiguity.

Downstream: collection must preserve links and interaction evidence when available, including what was observed and when. Rechecking can update availability without erasing what an earlier capture showed. This answer does not define a monitoring schedule, authorize purchasing automation or settle the separate Offer and promotional-banner questions.

Scope and next step

The evidence note records prior decisions, selected live records and local writer/reader concerns. No full deployed-path verification is claimed. The old retail cards remain historical proposals; this page corrects their conflicting premises without treating unanswered rows as approved.

Installation, exhibition booths and signage now have a separate three-choice review. The other individual retail candidates, exact display names and promotional-banner boundaries remain open. They stay in the review plan; none is approved by accepting these three choices.

Prepared 4 October 2026.

Your added examples require the pipeline to connect a complete PDP, product photography and the depicted product; and a physical shopping experience, its photographs and original interaction media. Preserve each identity and the evidence for its relationships. Channel and touchpoint mappings remain a dedicated audit; no exact storage choice follows from these approvals.

Last reviewed 5 October 2026.