How do the pieces in the library connect?

Look at the four commercials above. All four are the same kind of piece, and on your list of types commercials sit under the heading called Campaign.

The two HOKA films belong to the grouping Fly Collection Launch, which is a product launch. The old field on each says product campaign, and their marketing intent says product marketing.

The two Nike films belong to Just Do It: No Hesitation, which is a brand platform. The old field on each says brand campaign, and their marketing intent says brand marketing.

So one Nike film gives several answers. Its heading is Campaign, its reason for existing is brand marketing, and its grouping is Just Do It: No Hesitation. That grouping's kind is a campaign, and its type of campaign is a brand platform.

Every marketing intent was copied from the old field by renaming it, so brand campaign became brand marketing. The old field had been mixing the reason for a piece with the type of campaign it sits in.

In July you ruled that the field then called “content category” is not above content type. That is about the field on the piece. The headings on your list do sit above types, so if you mean the heading, the word moves to them and the July ruling still holds for the field.

In August the old field was split a different way: what a piece is about, the type of campaign it belongs to, and the job it does. So the type of campaign has been one of the meanings before.

The kinds of grouping are the four you ruled in August: a campaign, a brand-and-identity program, a project, and an event or season. Your two examples match two of them word for word.

Whichever you pick is what we call “category” from now on, and the others keep their plain names: marketing intent, heading, grouping, kind of grouping, type of campaign. No piece changes, and nothing moves today.

Your list of types is organised under headings, such as Corporate Communication and Documentation & Technical. This row asks whether a heading belongs to the list or to each piece.

The four pictures above all carry the type feature article, and feature articles sit under Corporate Communication. In picture order, their reasons for existing are product marketing, partnership marketing, brand marketing and corporate communications.

That is the usual pattern, not an exception. Of the 36 types whose pieces carry a reason, 31 have pieces with more than one.

Kept on the list, every feature article sits under one heading, and each piece's own reason is still there to narrow by. You browse by heading and filter by reason.

Stored on each piece, a heading would be decided piece by piece. Most headings are named like reasons, so it would repeat the reason, and the two could disagree.

One thing already sits on pieces that looks like a heading: the old “category” field, on 7,593 pieces, with values like brand identity and customer story. Keeping headings on the list means that field is not where they live.

This row connects to the first one. If “category” means the heading, this row decides where those headings live. The brand, the grouping and the job each piece does all stay as they are, and nothing moves today.

Some things in the library came from inside something else. A report run as an ad arrives as one picture per page. A studio's case study arrives as its loops, its photos and its words.

You have said both sides of this. On 16 August you called a piece the smallest unit, and a hero image on a landing page counted. When you kept infographic as a type, the answer you picked said a page of a report is part of something larger.

Both hold if a part stays a piece. It keeps its own type and can be found on its own. It also carries a link that says which piece it sits inside.

Today there is no such link: nothing records that one piece sits inside another. A part only carries the address of the page it came from. The good news is that 822 of those 832 pages are also kept whole, so the link has something to point at.

The name I would use is part, because your first-sitting answer already uses it. People also say an ad is part of a campaign, so the pages would say a piece belongs to a grouping, and a part sits inside a piece.

Part could also be the name your 4 August ruling promised, for a section of a long page or a region of an image. Your July ruling already says what contains what is a link, never a tag on the piece. So the link is settled; the name, and keeping parts as pieces, are open.

You have also said a page of a model card is not what someone browsing creative work is looking for. Research pieces already stay out of creative browsing, and that holds whichever way this row goes.

Nothing moves today. The pieces, their types and the groupings they belong to stay as they are. The link is built later, with the rest of the relationships.

On the first sitting you kept event photo, and said a photo should connect to the work it shows. This row asks how it connects.

The studio's DevDay page gave the library both. The photograph of the atrium shows a flower animation on the wall above the stairs, and loop 01 looks like the same animation.

Today they sit side by side in one grouping, and nothing says the photo shows that loop. The library cannot tell you which loop is on the wall.

The only link between two pieces today says one reuses the other's analysis: the same creative, posted somewhere else. A photo taken at the venue is a new picture, not the same creative.

In July you approved a tag for exactly this kind of piece: a photo or video of the work out in the world. So the photo keeps its own type and gains that tag.

In August you ruled that offline placement is part of the model, such as an airport photo someone takes. The link can carry that too: this photo shows loop 01, seen at the DevDay venue.

Where the library cannot tell which piece a photo shows, the photo still belongs to the grouping until someone picks.

The other way records the photo only as another appearance of the loop. Then the picture itself, taken by a photographer, could not be found as a piece. Nothing moves today.