Put a project on the map.

The chart from the coordinates page, with the lesson taken out and a file input put in. KTP, Ambient Breach Theory and Tamed Autonomy are always here; drop a registry record and it joins them.

examples

fileparsed in your browser, never uploaded

what this chart does and does not claim

Observed, not confirmed. A record the project itself has not agreed to draws as a dashed square. That survives a greyscale screenshot on purpose: what a project said about itself and what somebody said about it are different kinds of claim.

Two relationships only — Ambient Breach Theory feeding conditions into KTP, and Tamed Autonomy’s layer relation down to it. Those are known. Nothing else gets a line, including the examples: a reading taken off what a project published cannot know its seams. That is evaluated when a project files its own record, with both sides agreeing. Until then the placement is the whole claim.

Time lives in the file, not in a version store — several records sharing one project id with different as_of dates. The ↗ on a chip draws where that project has been, as hollow rings; hover one for its date and coverage. Three shapes here on purpose: Driftwatch goes up and right, Panoply goes right and never up, and Bulwark goes left, having narrowed its checks for latency. A chart where every trail ran rightward would be claiming something about this field it cannot support.

The examples are invented — not renamed products, not composites of them. Together they occupy every function row and both ends of the coverage axis, which is what the space looks like filled.

what the nodes are

archetype

A written example standing for a class of thing an organization already has — something that watches, blocks, records or repairs. Deliberately not a named product: naming vendors would make this a comparison chart instead of a coverage model.

ours

KTP and Ambient Breach Theory, placed on the same axes as everything else including where that is unflattering. KTP shows no ability to enforce its own decisions.

collaborator

Tamed Autonomy — Robin Martherus' work, built on KTP. It answers the question none of the others reach, so it sits on its own layer rather than competing for a row.

observed

A reading of a project taken from what it has published, not an account the project has given of itself. It may be wrong, and the project has not agreed to it. Drawn hollow and dashed so it can never be mistaken for the project's own words. Appears on the map tool only.

calibration case

A real system read from its own published standard — Bitcoin, TCP congestion control, Spanning Tree. There is no owner to register these and none to correct them, so they are not observed readings of anyone; the citation is the standard itself, and the reading can be checked against a document you can open. They are here as the test of whether this vocabulary describes the field or only this framework. Two of them occupy rows nothing else does.

the six cells under each node

Which parts of a situation the project takes account of — actor, authority, action, environment, time, evidence, in that order. Hollow means it does not look at that at all. Click a node for the figures. Six filled is not a goal: broad is not the same as deep, and most useful tools are deliberately narrow.

edges and spines

Solid — one project emits something another can consume. This is where a combination actually joins up. Dotted — a relation between layers rather than an interface. Tamed Autonomy does not plug into KTP; it governs what KTP is permitted to wave through. The faint vertical spine joins the rows one project appears in, so its whole span reads at a glance.

Both axes are coordinates. Down the side is the work each project does — a project appears in every row it works in, joined by a faint spine, so you can see its whole span rather than just its headline. Across the bottom is how many of the fourteen changing conditions it can see while doing it. Click any node for detail; pick a walkthrough to dim everything off the path.

All three layers are here, in order down the chart. The rows are the work. The rail beneath them is the question of whether the work should happen at all. The axis at the foot, and the six cells under each node, are the situation each project takes account of — the cells say whether it looks at something, not how well.

What this chart cuts. It shows coverage, not quality — nothing here says a project is good at the work it does, only that it does it. Only the environment axis carries a magnitude; the six cells under each node are yes-or-no. Weight is in the size of a mark and nowhere else, so a 0.4 and a 0.9 look more alike than they are. And no chart of six projects is your estate. An unstated cut would be an unstated claim, so these are stated.