Appearance
Your five examples, traced through the model
STATUS: HISTORICAL TRACE — awaiting complete revalidation · rows probed 2026-09-03 · traced against the way the review pack leans on 3 September 2026 — re-cut after you answer. Relationship names follow the maintained matrix; the observations and findings below retain their original date.
Read this as the earlier investigation, not today's system verdict or a new approval request. Later decisions distinguish works, versions, publications and captures, allow several whole-piece types, and keep useful document parts connected to their source. They also separate browsing visibility from creative usefulness. The older wording below does not override those decisions. Read the decision record for approved meanings and the current review desk for remaining choices. Every database and pipeline claim here still needs the comprehensive verification pass.
In July you set the test the model has to pass: your own examples, traced end to end — not asserted, walked. Here they are, each as a short table: what happens in the world, what the model says about it, what actually carries it in the database today, which decision in the review it hinges on, and — where the model or the pipeline cannot carry the step — the finding. A finding is reported, never patched over. Two cases are traced in full; three are sketched, because their gaps are the same gaps.
How to read the two grades. The word after each arrow grades the arrow itself: stored — a column exists and something writes it; empty — the column exists and nothing has written it yet; derived — the product works it out, nothing stores it; missing — the model draws it and no column carries it. The finding grades the fact in the world: an arrow can be stored and the fact still unwritable, when the column exists but has no word for what happened. A dash under It hinges on means no decision in the review covers this step; a dash under The finding means nothing is missing.
IBM at the US Open
In your words (24 July): “IBM is maybe the primary sponsor, maybe they're a secondary sponsor. And part of that is they do a campaign around IBM. It's a brand campaign as well as maybe there's a Watson specific product launch campaign or product campaign.”
In your words (24 July): “Ogilvy is the agency, but they're working with an experiential agency like Momentum to figure out the sort of physical experience. And then maybe Ogilvy is working on a TV campaign and Buck is doing the animation for it”
One sponsor, one yearly event, two campaigns, five vendors, a director and a cinematographer, pieces on television, at the venue and on the web, and the taglines inside them. Your brief named Ogilvy, Momentum and Buck; the trace adds the media agency and the production company your description implies, and the two credited people. If the model cannot hold this, it cannot hold the industry.
| What happens in the world | What the model says | What carries it today | It hinges on | The finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IBM is a company we track; the US Open is a named event, and this year's is one instance of it, hosted by the tennis association. | Entities runs · joins Groupings — stored | IBM exists as a brand owner. The event tables exist and hold sixteen instances today; none is the US Open. | P-10 | — (nothing missing) |
| IBM takes part in the event as its sponsor — primary or secondary. | Entities runs · joins Groupings — stored | A participation row can say sponsor, host, winner or finalist. Its placement column holds award tiers — gold, silver, bronze — not sponsor tiers. | — (no decision covers this) | There is no way to write primary versus secondary sponsor. The row can say IBM sponsored; it cannot say how much. |
| Two campaigns run at the event: an IBM brand campaign and a Watson product campaign. | Groupings contains Groupings — stored | A campaign can be tied to an event instance; one row in the whole library does so today. | P-06 · P-10 | — (nothing missing) |
| The Watson campaign promotes a product. | Groupings promotes Products — stored | Forty-one campaign-to-product rows exist. | A-07 | — (nothing missing) |
| Ogilvy is the creative agency; Momentum is the experiential agency; a media agency buys the placements; Tool of North America produces the film; BUCK animates it and designs the campaign's identity system. | Entities runs · joins Groupings — stored | A company can hold a named role on a campaign, and can hold two roles on the same campaign as two rows. The role list in use has three values: creative agency, customer, partner. BUCK exists as a creative studio; Ogilvy, Momentum and Tool do not exist yet. | — (no decision covers this) | Media agency, experiential agency and production company are not roles a company can hold on a campaign today. The rows would be written with the wrong word or not at all. |
| A director and a cinematographer are credited on the film. | Entities credited on Content — stored | A credit can name a person and a role; the roles used so far are director, creative director, motion designer, graphic designer, illustrator, content writer and installation designer. 45 credit rows exist in the whole library, across two tables. | A-09 | Cinematographer has never been written as a credit role, and 45 rows across two tables is the thinnest part of the model. |
| The pieces: the television commercial, its vertical cut, the booth at the venue, the landing page, the press release announcing the partnership. | Groupings gathers Content — stored | Each piece gets one label — commercial, landing page, press release — and belongs to the campaign only if a row says so. The booth would be an event film or a booth piece depending on S-09; a kiosk depends on R-03. | N-08 · S-01 · S-09 · R-03 · P-07 | Which campaign each piece belongs to is written by a script an operator runs by hand. Nothing in the pipeline would notice that the commercial, the booth film and the press release are one campaign. |
| The vertical cut of the commercial is the same creative as the television spot. | One creative has versions Content — missing | The two uploads would be two pieces, with no record that they are one creative. | P-07 | There is no creative above the pieces. P-07 names the middle level (a version); the identity above the versions still has no home. |
| Inside the commercial are moments: the tagline on screen, the product reveal, the value proposition spoken aloud. | Content is cut into Moments — stored | Moments exist on 245 videos; a moment can carry the words spoken and the claim made. | A-05 · A-06 | — (nothing missing) |
| The press release on IBM's newsroom is what tells us the partnership exists — the trigger. | Groupings gathers Content — empty | The newsroom is collected (about 130 pieces today) and an evidence table can mark a piece as earned press behind a campaign. Nothing reads the newsroom to start a campaign. | — (no decision covers this) | The real-time trigger you described does not exist. The step that would notice a press release and open a campaign is a placeholder in the code that does nothing. |
Where this case stands. The model can name every actor and every piece. It cannot yet say how big a sponsor is, cannot give a media agency or a production company its proper role, has almost no credits, cannot put one creative above its cuts, and would not notice the campaign at all until a person told it.
McDonald's and Minecraft — a sketch
In your words (24 July): “it's a McDonald's Minecraft partnership, and maybe we're onboarding McDonald's, and all of a sudden Minecraft gets created as an entity. Does that go into that entity pipeline to get all that information?”
A partnership campaign across two brands, showing off a feature inside the game, announced by a press release.
| What happens in the world | What the model says | What carries it today | It hinges on | The finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Both brands exist; the campaign is a partnership with both as partners. | Entities runs · joins Groupings — stored | McDonald's is a brand owner; Minecraft exists with no company kind written. Partner is a role a company can hold on a campaign. | P-06 | — (nothing missing) |
| The campaign shows a feature inside the game. | Content demonstrates Features — stored | A piece can demonstrate a feature; 1,750 such links exist. | A-07 | — (nothing missing) |
| Minecraft, newly minted, gets filled in — what kind of company it is, what it sells — through an onboarding of its own. | Entities classified by Concepts — missing | A company can be minted while a piece is read; nothing then fills in what kind of company it is or what it sells. | A-07 | There is no entity pipeline. A minted company stays a name. |
| The press release is the trigger. | Groupings gathers Content — empty | See the newsroom case. | — (no decision covers this) | The same missing trigger as the IBM case. |
Where this case stands. Two brands and a partnership role are fine; the feature link is fine; the new entity stays a bare name and the campaign waits for a person.
The model card on a launch tweet
In your words (24 July): “maybe one of the Twitter posts there's a model card and there's a six page PDF showing data viz graphics from like a ML research paper. Right now that falls into our content pipeline and that's not really where it belongs.”
In your words (24 July): “we still want to capture the model card. We still want to capture that PDF from the ML research team because again, someone on a product marketing team might be like, oh, okay, it's interesting to know they included that on a bunch of Twitter posts”
A launch day: tweets, a launch film, and among them a six-page model card. Capture it, keep it, tie it to the launch — and keep it out of the creative browse.
| What happens in the world | What the model says | What carries it today | It hinges on | The finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI launches a model; the tweets and the film are pieces of the launch campaign. | Groupings gathers Content — stored | Tweets are stored as social posts today — the label P-03 is about. | P-03 · P-06 | — (nothing missing) |
| One tweet carries a model card. It is captured. | Content classified by Concepts — stored | Fourteen of these cards are in the library — stored under the label system card, the library's word for the same document — every one a web page, labelled by a fixed rule that reads the page kind. One belongs to a campaign. | L-04 · S-08 | — (nothing missing) |
| The card stays out of the creative browse — it is not marketing work. | Content classified by Concepts — stored | The only thing that separates a system card from a brand film is the shelf its label sits on. The router never looks at what a piece is; there is no browse-by-kind; the app's label list has no name for a system card at all. | S-08 · L-04 | Nothing separates supporting material from creative work. The shelf is doing a job nobody assigned it — this is the routing gap behind S-08 and L-04. |
| The card is a six-page PDF with charts in it; the charts are worth finding later. | Content is cut into Moments — missing | Moments exist for video only. No system card has been cut into anything. One PDF exists in the whole library, and it is a set of promotion terms. | A-10 | There is no word for a region of a page or a chart inside a document, so the graphics you want to find cannot be found. |
| The card is tied to the launch it shipped with. | Groupings gathers Content — stored | One system card is in a campaign today. The link is written by hand. | P-06 | — (nothing missing) |
Where this case stands. The card is captured and named. Whether it stays out of creative browsing rests on one shelf and nothing else; the charts inside it are unreachable; and its link to the launch is hand-made.
The vendor's case-study page — a sketch
In your words (24 July): “Say we scraped the case study page of Ogilvy, Buck, of all the live action production company and they all had sort of great ways to talk about what they did, how they did it, why”
A studio's own page about the work: the credits, how they describe their craft, the shots worth keeping.
| What happens in the world | What the model says | What carries it today | It hinges on | The finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The studio's portfolio page is collected. | Entities owns Content — stored | Nineteen portfolio pieces exist; the portfolio source has no routing row, so they ride default handling and one has never been analysed. | — (no decision covers this) | Vendor portfolios have no route of their own. |
| The page credits the studio and names the crafts. | Entities credited on Content — stored | Credits and craft links exist as columns; almost nothing writes credits. | A-08 · A-09 | Nothing reads credits off a vendor page — the credit writer is on the pipeline's broken list. |
| The shots and renders on the page are kept as pieces of their own. | Entities owns Content — stored | Images cut from landing pages exist as pieces of their own (eight today), also unrouted. | L-01 | — (nothing missing) |
Where this case stands. Collected, mostly unread: no route, no credit writer.
The newsroom trigger — a sketch
In your words (24 July): “it's also why we capture the sort of newsroom or the PR links of these companies, because sometimes they more clarify like, you know, IBM partners with US Open on XYZ or Minecraft partners with McDonald's. And then that's like the trigger”
A press release lands on a brand's newsroom and a campaign opens from it, in real time.
| What happens in the world | What the model says | What carries it today | It hinges on | The finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The newsroom is collected daily. | Entities owns Content — stored | About 130 newsroom pieces and a routed prompt for them; press releases get their label by a fixed rule. | — (no decision covers this) | — (nothing missing) |
| A release that names a partnership opens a campaign and files the pieces under it. | Groupings gathers Content — empty | The evidence table can mark a piece as earned press behind a campaign; the code that would read a release and act is a placeholder that does nothing; campaigns are grouped by a script run by hand. | P-06 | The trigger does not exist. This is the single biggest gap the five cases share. |
Where this case stands. Collected, labelled, and then nothing happens.
What the five cases share
- IBM at the US Open · McDonald's and Minecraft · The newsroom trigger: Nothing notices a campaign. A press release lands, a partnership is announced, and no step opens a campaign or files the pieces under it; a person runs a script.
- IBM at the US Open: A company cannot hold the roles the industry uses. Media agency, experiential agency and production company are not roles a company can have on a campaign; a sponsor cannot be primary or secondary.
- IBM at the US Open · The vendor's case-study page: Credits are almost empty, and a cinematographer has never been credited. The newer credit writer is on the pipeline's broken list; nothing reads credits off a vendor's page.
- McDonald's and Minecraft: A newly minted company stays a bare name. There is no step that fills in what kind of company it is or what it sells.
- IBM at the US Open: One creative has no identity above its cuts. The television spot and its vertical version are two pieces with no record that they are the same work.
- The model card on a launch tweet: Nothing separates supporting material from creative work except the shelf a label sits on; and there is no word for a chart inside a document.
- The vendor's case-study page: Vendor portfolio pages have no route of their own and ride default handling; one has never been analysed.
Where to look next
- The relationship matrix — every arrow above, with the columns and the code behind it.
- The review — the decisions these cases hinge on, in walk order.
- The pipelines — what runs today and what the model implies but nobody has built.