# Working views — meanings and source views

[Agent welcome](https://experimentsin.ai/sitemap.html#for-agents) · [Browse the pictures](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html)

Working views collects the nets, maps, matrices and screens used inside the examples, rather than project emblems or scene illustrations. Read the caption, depicted state and limitation before opening the example. A screenshot records one view; it does not prove the model’s claims or show its current state. Text descriptions and source links remain available when pictures or interaction are unavailable.

Capture and check dates below describe the catalogue record. They do not claim that the live app was rechecked when this guide was generated. Use the image and the explanation together; read the original example for details beyond the depicted view.

## When can the next task start?

- View ID: boundary-net
- Home: Gimmer · boundary contracts
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: A connected Petri net makes a lifting resource and the installed roof explicit. Tokens determine which selected work events can start.
- Look for: Follow the release event into the shared resource place, then inspect the roof event.
- Limit: A finite, once-only construction; this is not a complete engineering or scheduling model.
- Depicted state: Default example: A blocked method becomes possible; nothing completed.
- Image description: A connected Petri net makes a lifting resource and the installed roof explicit. Tokens determine which selected work events can start.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=boundary-net) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/boundary-net.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/boundary-net-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag-project-mountain-refuge/apps/boundary-contract-lab/#panel-steps)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Which chain crosses every work layer?

- View ID: shed-spine
- Home: Project Spines · mountain refuge shed
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Fourteen shed tasks form eight precedence layers. The highlighted chain meets each displayed layer exactly once.
- Look for: Follow the red tasks through the coloured layers, then compare the three partitions in the source.
- Limit: Logical independence does not guarantee simultaneous work. This finite example checks three particular minimum partitions, not arbitrary task groups.
- Depicted state: Earliest Feasible Layers; Show Spine on. The selected 17-day chain differs from the 19-day CPM path, which is also a spine.
- Image description: Fourteen shed tasks form eight precedence layers. The highlighted chain meets each displayed layer exactly once.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=shed-spine) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shed-spine.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shed-spine.svg) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/project-spines/experiments/shed-spine-construction.html#graph)
- Capture: Rendered SVG from the published page; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Can all five local rules agree?

- View ID: triangle-compatibility
- Home: Local to Global
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Five specialist exclusion rules overlap on a triangular site. Filled dots satisfy them all at the same sampled location.
- Look for: Compare Balanced with No global fit, then select a dot to inspect its five margins.
- Limit: A finite sampling toy. Zero passing samples does not prove that every point between samples is impossible.
- Depicted state: Balanced preset: 91 passing samples.
- Image description: Five specialist exclusion rules overlap on a triangular site. Filled dots satisfy them all at the same sampled location.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=triangle-compatibility) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/triangle-compatibility.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/triangle-compatibility-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/local-to-global/forays/003-tangled-triangle.html#first-try)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Can evidence change the choice before it closes?

- View ID: festival-evidence
- Home: Programme Decision Sequences · festival shuttle
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: A demand survey leads to two possible later reservations. Each signal updates the demand belief before the bus-hire deadline.
- Look for: Follow the high and low signals into different fleet choices. Signal probabilities are not chances that a booking succeeds.
- Limit: A fictional binary-demand model with declared payoffs and independent signals. The values are service-value points, not a transport budget or forecast.
- Depicted state: Worth buying preset; review 0. Prior 0.5, survey accuracy 0.8, routine accuracy 0.5, survey cost 4, waiting cost 3, deadline 2, survey latency 1.
- Image description: A fresh demand survey branches into two equally likely signals: high updates belief to 80% and reserves three buses; low updates belief to 20% and reserves one bus.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=festival-evidence) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/festival-evidence.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/festival-evidence-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Programme-decision-sequences/evidence.html#visual-title)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-02

## When does an answer become the next question?

- View ID: island-feedback
- Home: Functors for Projects · Island Reading Room
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Landing and delivery coordinators exchange offers and requests through a shared interface. External reports and project requests remain visible at the edges.
- Look for: Follow the two crossing B wires in opposite directions. Their crossing is not a junction.
- Limit: Authored routing policies in a finite model, not full game strategies. A proposed delivery plan establishes no physical delivery or safe passage.
- Depicted state: Initial request; shore path allowed; fixed pallet; full conversation shown; external report selected but not supplied.
- Image description: Landing and delivery coordinators exchange offers and requests through a shared interface. External reports and project requests remain visible at the edges.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=island-feedback) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/island-feedback.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/island-feedback.svg) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/functors-for_projects/apps/geometry-of-interaction/index.html#experiment)
- Capture: Rendered SVG from the published page; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Is a way of moving the same as a path?

- View ID: rotunda-trajectory
- Home: Bricklaying a Rotunda · continuous dynamics
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Teal arrows sample a rule of motion across the state cylinder. One gold trajectory follows that rule, with the same history unwrapped alongside it.
- Look for: Compare the field with the single history. Cylinder height is completed work, not physical tower height. Replay time and explanation layer are temporary source controls.
- Limit: A separate smooth toy that omits bricks, curing and shared hoists. The full tangent bundle is four-dimensional; the displayed planes are samples. No link to the finite brick model is proved.
- Depicted state: Steady work; initial angle 30°, angular rate 0.8, work rate 0.1. Trajectory layer; replay t = 5.00, completed work w = 0.5, angle θ = 259.2°.
- Image description: Teal direction arrows and sample tangent planes on a work-state cylinder, with one gold trajectory and its matching unwrapped coordinate history shown alongside.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=rotunda-trajectory) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/rotunda-trajectory.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/rotunda-trajectory-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/bricklaying-a-rotunda/apps/constructive-state/index.html#continuous)
- Capture: Rendered SVG from the published page; recorded check date: 2026-10-02

## Find the feedback group

- View ID: dependency-matrix
- Home: Library · dependency matrix
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Reordering the same six activities brings their mutually dependent group into one block of the matrix.
- Look for: Compare the collected and partitioned orders. A row receives information from a column.
- Limit: The matrix records information dependencies, not durations, resource capacity or iteration counts.
- Depicted state: Reorder activities tab; One feedback group.
- Image description: Reordering the same six activities brings their mutually dependent group into one block of the matrix.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=dependency-matrix) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/dependency-matrix.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/dependency-matrix-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/frobenius-dsm-explorer/#output-matrix)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Keep three kinds of thing distinct

- View ID: rail-layers
- Home: Py3Plex rail notebook
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: Objectives, stakeholders and scope occupy separate layers while links connect them across a rail-project example.
- Look for: Read the layer names, then follow the guide’s new track → carbon ambition → town council chain.
- Limit: Nodes are unlabelled in this overview. The source does not define weights as probabilities or causal influence.
- Depicted state: Original saved three-layer overview.
- Image description: Objectives, stakeholders and scope occupy separate layers while links connect them across a rail-project example.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=rail-layers) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/rail-layers.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/rail-layers-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/models/rail-stakeholders-objectives-scope.html#three-kinds-of-information)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/notebook-examples/rail-three-layers.png)

## See a complete crossing choice

- View ID: wildlife-configuration
- Home: Project Co-design
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The selected implementation becomes two crossing sites, guide fencing and observation points in an invented landscape.
- Look for: Change the brief or select another compatible choice, and compare the displayed resources.
- Limit: The picture is not to scale; capacities and costs are declared assumptions, not predictions of animal use.
- Depicted state: Default 110 model-crossings/day brief; 30 m + 50 m bundle.
- Image description: The selected implementation becomes two crossing sites, guide fencing and observation points in an invented landscape.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wildlife-configuration) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wildlife-configuration.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wildlife-configuration-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/project-co-design/apps/wildlife-crossing.html)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Where does the scaffolding go next?

- View ID: shell-resources
- Home: Building a Wall · wider shell
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Experiment
- Caption: The shell’s wiring returns the excavator and threads the supplied scaffolding through walling, roofing and return. Two work branches meet at inspection.
- Look for: Trace the scaffolding wire, then follow the separate Roofing and Fitting branches into inspection.
- Limit: An architectural study, not an executed extension of the controls. Labour, physics, durations and inspection criteria remain unspecified; connections do not certify a building.
- Depicted state: Published wider-shell study; 28 connections.
- Image description: The shell’s wiring returns the excavator and threads the supplied scaffolding through walling, roofing and return. Two work branches meet at inspection.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=shell-resources) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shell-resources.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shell-resources.svg) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/building_a_wall/apps/wall-roof-wiring-smc/index.html#wider-shell)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/building_a_wall/apps/wall-roof-wiring-smc/wider-shell.svg)

## Put the project inside its context

- View ID: farm-context
- Home: Integrated risks & tasks
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Experiment
- Caption: A context comb keeps project processes and surrounding activity in one picture, with an explicit exchange between them.
- Look for: Follow the wires left to right through setup, project/context actions, exchange and assessment.
- Limit: One generic interaction round. This diagram does not by itself implement an optic or feedback controller.
- Image description: A context comb keeps project processes and surrounding activity in one picture, with an explicit exchange between them.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=farm-context) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-context.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-context.svg) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/integrated_risks_tasks/#context-comb)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/integrated_risks_tasks/assets/context-comb.svg)

## What does one more buffer day buy?

- View ID: buffer-response
- Home: Library · risk gradient
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: The blue curve shows the model’s risk index as Development receives buffer; the bars show the next day’s marginal reduction.
- Look for: Compare the steep first reduction with the diminishing reductions later on.
- Limit: An uncalibrated teaching formula. The percentages are not a measured probability of project failure.
- Depicted state: Reset scenario; Development selected; zero buffer.
- Image description: The blue curve shows the model’s risk index as Development receives buffer; the bars show the next day’s marginal reduction.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=buffer-response) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/buffer-response.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/buffer-response-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-risk-gradient/#risk-chart)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Join two modules at one handover

- View ID: shared-boundaries
- Home: Shared waters
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Barge-service planning and depot-receiving planning expose the same draft-offer interface at their boundaries.
- Look for: Change Separate modules to Joined graph: the two B vertices become one.
- Limit: Boundary identity is declared. Matching the graph does not establish staffing, agreement or compatible histories.
- Depicted state: Separate modules; coordination summary off; matching interface.
- Image description: Barge-service planning and depot-receiving planning expose the same draft-offer interface at their boundaries.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=shared-boundaries) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shared-boundaries.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shared-boundaries-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/shared-dynamics/compose.html#compose-diagram)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Can everyone agree and still double-book the team?

- View ID: shared-capacity
- Home: Shared waters · shared observations and capacity
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Three processes agree on version A of one power-link specification, yet design and installation both request the same integration team.
- Look for: Separate the solid specification-observation wires from the dashed capacity requests. In the source, also select Installation requests the team to reproduce this conflict.
- Limit: A finite candidate snapshot with equality and one supplied same-slot capacity rule. It is not an execution trace or schedule; agreement establishes neither approval nor truth.
- Depicted state: All three version observations A; Design and Installation both request the team. Two reservations for capacity one.
- Image description: Three version A observations connect to one agreed power-link specification; separate dashed requests from design and installation show two reservations for one integration team.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=shared-capacity) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shared-capacity.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shared-capacity-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/shared-dynamics/interfaces.html#interfaces-diagram)
- Capture: Rendered SVG from the published page; recorded check date: 2026-10-02

## What must travel back across an interface?

- View ID: lens-directions
- Home: Bricklaying a Rotunda · wiring and lenses
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Experiment
- Caption: A lens pairs a forward map with a backward map that may also depend on the forward-side value.
- Look for: In section 2 of the source, compare f with f♯: the backward map has both A⁺ and B⁻ as inputs.
- Limit: A diagram of the lens interface, not an executed rotunda trajectory or a physical feedback controller.
- Depicted state: Source section 2, Lenses: forward + backward; original dark palette.
- Image description: A lens pairs a forward map with a backward map that may also depend on the forward-side value.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=lens-directions) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/lens-directions.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/lens-directions.svg) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/bricklaying-a-rotunda/apps/wiring_lens_explainer.html)
- Capture: Published inline SVG with its source styling; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Compose two mobilisation processes

- View ID: mobilising
- Home: DisCoPy mobilisation notebook
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: Two mobilisation boxes each produce a team and a blueprint. A swap brings like outputs to their separate merge boxes.
- Look for: The crossing changes wire order; the boxes below it perform the proposed merges.
- Limit: Symbolic typed composition does not establish that actual teams or blueprints can be combined.
- Depicted state: Original saved diagram.
- Image description: Two mobilisation boxes each produce a team and a blueprint. A swap brings like outputs to their separate merge boxes.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=mobilising) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/mobilising.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/mobilising-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/models/mobilising-two-projects.html#follow-the-wires)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/notebook-examples/mobilising-two-projects.png)

## Look at one project through fourteen views

- View ID: project-views
- Home: Functors for Projects
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: A microsite project is grouped into task, schedule, cost, resource and other views. Connections distinguish relations from proposed mappings.
- Look for: Hide a view or select a red connection marker to read what a link means.
- Limit: A relationship sketch. The coloured regions are not verified categories, and functor laws are not checked.
- Depicted state: Separated layout; all views and connections visible.
- Image description: A microsite project is grouped into task, schedule, cost, resource and other views. Connections distinguish relations from proposed mappings.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=project-views) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/project-views.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/project-views-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/functors-for_projects/apps/functor-atlas-project-example/index.html)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Do three pairwise links make a joint decision?

- View ID: joint-relationships
- Home: Functors for Projects · three-way relationships
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Filled triangles record explicitly declared three-way relationships. Outlines retain the pairwise links without that additional joint relationship.
- Look for: Compare the selected scope–schedule–resources face with an outlined triangle.
- Limit: Illustrative choices: a filled face proves neither agreement nor feasibility. No cost, schedule, risk or topology analysis is computed.
- Depicted state: Default Scope · Schedule · Resources case selected.
- Image description: Filled triangles record explicitly declared three-way relationships. Outlines retain the pairwise links without that additional joint relationship.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=joint-relationships) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/joint-relationships.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/joint-relationships.svg) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/functors-for_projects/apps/simplicial-project-management/index.html#diagram)
- Capture: Rendered SVG from the published page; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Make competition for the lane visible

- View ID: farm-lane-net
- Home: Integrated risks & tasks
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Experiment
- Caption: This shared-lane Petri-net fragment makes two competing starts and the return of one reusable access token visible.
- Look for: Trace each start, occupancy and finish, including the token’s return to Lane free.
- Limit: This is a map of possible transitions, not a timed schedule or a probability model.
- Depicted state: One token is at Lane free; Wagon on lane and Cattle on lane are empty. Either start can acquire that token, but both cannot hold the lane together.
- Image description: This shared-lane Petri-net fragment makes two competing starts and the return of one reusable access token visible.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=farm-lane-net) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-lane-net.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-lane-net-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/integrated_risks_tasks/#wiring)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Reconcile four directors’ views

- View ID: four-directors
- Home: Portfolio data models
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: Strategy, Product, Portfolio and Operations describe the same imagined company through different kinds of objects.
- Look for: Follow outcomes, outputs, features and services across the four grouped views.
- Limit: The cross-view relationships are proposed assumptions for the example, not a universal business schema.
- Image description: Strategy, Product, Portfolio and Operations describe the same imagined company through different kinds of objects.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=four-directors) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/four-directors.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/four-directors-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Portfolio-data-model.html#four-directors-one-roadmap)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-originals/four-directors.png)

## Which distinctions do your coding choices remove?

- View ID: incident-quotient
- Home: Functors for Projects · finite colimit
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Two chosen same-code identifications put incidents I1, I2 and I3 into one quotient class, while I4 remains separate.
- Look for: Follow the identification links across the top, then the incident-to-class lines below.
- Limit: An equality-only coding analogy. The model neither analyses incident meaning nor discovers a core theory.
- Depicted state: Four incidents; identifications I1 → I2 and I2 → I3; two quotient classes. No coding test run.
- Image description: Two chosen same-code identifications put incidents I1, I2 and I3 into one quotient class, while I4 remains separate.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=incident-quotient) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/incident-quotient.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/incident-quotient.svg) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/functors-for_projects/apps/grounded-theory-colimit/index.html#build-title)
- Capture: Rendered SVG from the published page; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Keep plans attached to their assumptions

- View ID: milestone-context
- Home: Functors for Projects · milestones
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Regional plans are grouped by their shared context. A comparison points back towards the baseline with fewer constraints.
- Look for: Turn on the Asian privacy observation, then read the projection arrows and the direction of the context comparison.
- Limit: A fibration candidate and supplied-rule explorer; no cartesian lifting property or real acceptance is established.
- Depicted state: Asian privacy change on; other constraints off; shared contract authorised in the toy.
- Image description: Regional plans are grouped by their shared context. A comparison points back towards the baseline with fewer constraints.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=milestone-context) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/milestone-context.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/milestone-context-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/functors-for_projects/apps/fibration-milestone-linking/index.html#contexts-heading)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Separate doing from becoming true

- View ID: tasks-states
- Home: One job, seven graph models
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: A waste-removal job is drawn as tasks, the conditions those tasks achieve, and the roles allocated to them.
- Look for: Compare Prepare Waste extraction plan with Plan agreed; one is work, the other its assumed result.
- Limit: Allocation edges do not check resource availability; preparing a plan is assumed to achieve agreement.
- Depicted state: Original task/state/resource graph.
- Image description: A waste-removal job is drawn as tasks, the conditions those tasks achieve, and the roles allocated to them.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=tasks-states) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/tasks-states.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/tasks-states-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/project-model-comparison.html#one-small-job)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-originals/waste-tasks-states-resources.png)

## Collapse a feedback loop into one group

- View ID: dependency-groups
- Home: Library · dependency matrix
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: The condensed graph treats the mutually connected Load model, Frame design and Foundation design as one component.
- Look for: Compare this chain with the matrix tile: it keeps inter-group order while hiding internal detail.
- Limit: Grouping does not remove iteration or supply a feasible project schedule.
- Depicted state: Reorder activities tab; One feedback group.
- Image description: The condensed graph treats the mutually connected Load model, Frame design and Foundation design as one component.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=dependency-groups) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/dependency-groups.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/dependency-groups-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/frobenius-dsm-explorer/#graph)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## See what abstraction forgets

- View ID: shared-abstraction
- Home: Shared waters
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Experiment
- Caption: Two detailed preparation routes map to a single abstract route while their input and output boundaries remain.
- Look for: Notice that route identity disappears even though endpoints and boundary types survive.
- Limit: This is a graph map, not evidence that the routes take equal time or can substitute in practice.
- Image description: Two detailed preparation routes map to a single abstract route while their input and output boundaries remain.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=shared-abstraction) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shared-abstraction.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/shared-abstraction-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/shared-dynamics/compose.html#map-diagram)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## The plan before the cows

- View ID: farm-before
- Home: Integrated risks & tasks · original sketch
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: The original whiteboard connects moving and pouring concrete with wagon, workers and shuttering inside a chosen scope.
- Look for: Notice the access assumption left outside this project-only picture; compare the companion cow sketch.
- Limit: No cattle in this branch does not mean no risk. The original handwriting and image quality are retained.
- Image description: The original whiteboard connects moving and pouring concrete with wagon, workers and shuttering inside a chosen scope.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=farm-before) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-before.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-before-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/integrated_risks_tasks/#sketches)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/integrated_risks_tasks/assets/original-baseline.jpg)

## Let an outside process into the plan

- View ID: farm-after
- Home: Integrated risks & tasks · original sketch
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: Cattle-to-market and weather enter the original sketch. The road is shared, and the concrete move is crossed out.
- Look for: Read the crossed-out move as temporarily disabled while access is occupied, then compare the explicit lane net.
- Limit: The sketch motivates the corrected model; it is not itself a fully specified executable process.
- Image description: Cattle-to-market and weather enter the original sketch. The road is shared, and the concrete move is crossed out.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=farm-after) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-after.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-after-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/integrated_risks_tasks/#sketches)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/integrated_risks_tasks/assets/original-cattle.jpg)

## Read joint work as a composed arrow

- View ID: boundary-composition
- Home: Gimmer · boundary contracts
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: With two independently supplied lifts, the frame and roof task arrows can appear alongside one another in one admitted step.
- Look for: Choose Show two independent lifts, then Lift frame + Lift roof in Inspect a possible step.
- Limit: Tensor notation alone does not guarantee joint starts: the input-token check is retained separately.
- Depicted state: Two independent lifts; joint step inspected, not executed.
- Image description: With two independently supplied lifts, the frame and roof task arrows can appear alongside one another in one admitted step.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=boundary-composition) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/boundary-composition.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/boundary-composition-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag-project-mountain-refuge/apps/boundary-contract-lab/#monoidal-title)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Does more capacity remove the wait?

- View ID: gimmer-hidden-order
- Home: Gimmer · processes to plans
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Two models that shared a baseline plan respond differently to doubled resources: one overlaps wall and roof work; the other retains a required handoff.
- Look for: Compare the wall and roof bars on their shared day 18–27 scale. In the source, choose More resources; compare Same plan to see what the baseline concealed.
- Limit: Fixed toy durations and a chosen-execution projection. This does not validate real construction sequencing, resource estimates, safety or a mathematical functor.
- Depicted state: More resources, step 2: two crew, two tool and two lift tokens; walls-first priority; fixed durations. Timeline excerpts from the 14-task plans.
- Image description: Two wall-and-roof timelines on the same day 18–27 scale: shared-resource model A overlaps both tasks and finishes on day 31; required-order model B puts roof after walls and finishes on day 34.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=gimmer-hidden-order) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/gimmer-hidden-order.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/gimmer-hidden-order-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag/apps/mountain-refuge-petri-wbs-demo/index.html?view=comparison#same-plan-witness)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-02

## Narrow the view and notice what disappears

- View ID: rail-neighbours
- Home: Py3Plex rail notebook
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: The carbon objective and its two immediate outgoing objective neighbours form a small, readable neighbourhood.
- Look for: Compare this close-up with the three-layer overview: no scope or stakeholder links remain here.
- Limit: This is objective-only, not a whole-network neighbourhood. Some original labels are clipped; the guide names them.
- Depicted state: Original saved ego view.
- Image description: The carbon objective and its two immediate outgoing objective neighbours form a small, readable neighbourhood.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=rail-neighbours) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/rail-neighbours.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/rail-neighbours-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/models/rail-stakeholders-objectives-scope.html#narrow-the-view)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/notebook-examples/carbon-objective-neighbours.png)

## Connect strategy to delivery and operations

- View ID: programme-schema
- Home: Portfolio data models
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: A programme schema connects strategic objectives, programme outcomes, programmes, projects, work packages, services and consumers.
- Look for: Follow the links crossing between the strategic, delivery and operational parts of the drawing.
- Limit: An earlier toy schema, drawing on public university material and guessed details; not an adopted organisational model.
- Image description: Strategy, Projects and Operations are grouped around Programme Outcomes, with links between strategic objectives, delivery work, services and consumers.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=programme-schema) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/programme-schema.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/programme-schema-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Portfolio-data-model.html#other-model-reading-routes)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/Portfolio-data-model/Digital_Programme_simplified_graph_schema.jpg)

## See which branch has room to move

- View ID: buffer-network
- Home: Library · risk gradient
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A seven-task dependency network shows the critical branch and the float on documentation and training.
- Look for: Select Show network; compare a buffer day on Development with one on Documentation.
- Limit: The declared network is small and fixed. Timing is separate from the illustrative risk-response formula.
- Depicted state: Reset scenario; Show network; no buffers.
- Image description: A seven-task dependency network shows the critical branch and the float on documentation and training.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=buffer-network) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/buffer-network.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/buffer-network-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-risk-gradient/)
- Capture: Page screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01

## Inspect an early task-to-token translation

- View ID: early-petri
- Home: One job, seven graph models
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: The first two waste-removal tasks become transitions, with states and roles represented as places carrying token properties.
- Look for: Read the guide’s qualifications about initial tokens, zero consumption and roles that are not returned.
- Limit: An incomplete source fragment with unresolved token meanings and no firing engine.
- Depicted state: Original Neo4j Place/Transition graph.
- Image description: The first two waste-removal tasks become transitions, with states and roles represented as places carrying token properties.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=early-petri) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/early-petri.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/early-petri-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/project-model-comparison.html#petri-limits)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-originals/waste-petri-fragment.png)

## Connect software tools with possible data

- View ID: methods-data
- Home: Earlier methods
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: Software libraries and platforms are linked to particular datasets proposed for exploration.
- Look for: Follow a tool-to-dataset link and consider what question that pairing might help investigate.
- Limit: Historical possibilities, not a validated method-selection rule or current performance claim.
- Depicted state: Original software-tools-to-data sketch.
- Image description: Two columns headed Code Libraries and Data connect tools such as Python spaCy, Keras and Orange to named datasets.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=methods-data) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/methods-data.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/methods-data-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/articles/choosing-a-machine-learning-approach.html)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/2020-05-08-Applying-appropriate-machine-learning-approach/2020-02-subgraph-ML-model-to-data.png)

## Read just the task chain

- View ID: tasks-only
- Home: One job, seven graph models
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: Identify waste, prepare the extraction plan, commission suppliers and remove waste appear as a simple task sequence.
- Look for: Compare with the combined task/state/resource view to see what the simpler chain leaves implicit.
- Limit: A stored order of actions; no schedule calculation or resource check.
- Depicted state: Original task-only graph.
- Image description: Identify waste, prepare the extraction plan, commission suppliers and remove waste appear as a simple task sequence.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=tasks-only) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/tasks-only.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/tasks-only-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/project-model-comparison.html#what-disappears)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-originals/waste-tasks.png)

## Choose the practices a portfolio needs

- View ID: portfolio-framework
- Home: Portfolio frameworks
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: The framework groups portfolio work into governance, reporting and control, and programme/project delivery support.
- Look for: Use the three branches to orient the practices being discussed in the framework guide.
- Limit: An earlier organising framework, not a complete retained toolkit or proof of organisational effectiveness.
- Image description: The framework groups portfolio work into governance, reporting and control, and programme/project delivery support.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=portfolio-framework) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/portfolio-framework.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/portfolio-framework-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Portfolio-frameworks.html)
- Capture: Published diagram; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/Portfolio-frameworks/portfolio-tier1.png)

## Turn project records into a question worth testing

- View ID: orange-workflow
- Home: Library · Orange project ratings
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: Data preparation branches into model comparison, visual exploration and an intended prediction route.
- Look for: Follow Extract to Sample data, then the lower branch into Test possible supervised models.
- Limit: The target is IEG Bank Performance, not general project success. The workbook is absent; this is not a reproduced early forecast or working deployment.
- Depicted state: Original saved Orange workflow screenshot.
- Image description: An Orange workflow connects data preparation to model comparisons, visual exploration and an intended runtime prediction branch.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=orange-workflow) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/orange-workflow.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/orange-workflow-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/ML-for-portfolios.html#orange-project-ratings)
- Capture: Published workflow screenshot; recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/ML-for-portfolios/orange-project-ratings-workflow.png)

## Decide now—or find out more first?

- View ID: monthly-decisions
- Home: Library · monthly portfolio review
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Earlier example
- Caption: Today’s state and decision lead through progress and new information into the next review.
- Look for: Follow S₀ and x₀ through W₁ to the updated state and next decision.
- Limit: A 2026 reading diagram of a December 2020 question. The retained notebooks do not learn a policy, consume new evidence or model assurance.
- Depicted state: Reading diagram, not a computed policy.
- Image description: The current review’s state and decision connect through progress and new information to the next review’s updated state and decision.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=monthly-decisions) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/monthly-decisions.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/monthly-decisions.svg) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/ML-for-portfolios.html#monthly-portfolio-decisions)
- Capture: Published reading diagram (2026); recorded check date: 2026-10-01
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/ML-for-portfolios/monthly-portfolio-review.svg)

## Which work is enabled now?

- View ID: gimmer-generated-net
- Home: Gimmer · processes to plans
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Places hold conditions and counted resources; transitions consume and produce the tokens that permit refuge work.
- Look for: Follow a material or resource place into a transition. The initial marking enables Kickoff.
- Limit: Untimed firing shows reachability under supplied rules. Durations and the separate scheduler do not make this an engineering assurance model.
- Depicted state: Manual Petri net opened at the initial marking; one crew, one tool and one lift token. No transition fired.
- Image description: Places hold conditions and counted resources; transitions consume and produce the tokens that permit refuge work.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=gimmer-generated-net) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/gimmer-generated-net.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/gimmer-generated-net-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag/apps/mountain-refuge-petri-wbs-demo/index.html?view=scheduler#process-lab)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## The same drawn endpoints, different paths

- View ID: cliff-paths
- Home: Broader Gimmer · alternative construction drawings
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Reference paths for helicopter and rope construction share drawn start and finish points; corresponding vertices can be interpolated.
- Look for: The numbered dots correspond by position in the drawing, not by equivalent work.
- Limit: This is a homotopy of drawn paths in an unrestricted plane. No space of feasible construction plans or preserved safety constraints is established.
- Depicted state: Helicopter Assembly to Rope & Pulley System, blend 0%, playback paused.
- Image description: Reference paths for helicopter and rope construction share drawn start and finish points; corresponding vertices can be interpolated.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=cliff-paths) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/cliff-paths.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/cliff-paths-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag/apps/homotopic-cliff-shed-construction/index.html#diagram)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## What does task proximity actually mean?

- View ID: cliff-task-field
- Home: Broader Gimmer · task affinity
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Sixteen numbered task dots are positioned by a repeatable affinity-layout experiment. Dashed links mark nearby positive-affinity pairs.
- Look for: Compare task colours and the pale rings for supplied critical priorities, then run the layout in the app.
- Limit: Positions, links and priority rings are illustrative. They are not dependencies, durations, risk estimates or a feasible construction sequence.
- Depicted state: Companion field opened; seed 190, attraction 0.5, 0 of 600 steps, task 1 selected.
- Image description: Sixteen numbered task dots are positioned by a repeatable affinity-layout experiment. Dashed links mark nearby positive-affinity pairs.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=cliff-task-field) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/cliff-task-field.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/cliff-task-field-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag/apps/homotopic-cliff-shed-construction/index.html#field-title)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## One history after a major revision

- View ID: feedback-history
- Home: Gimmer · feedback to plans
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The selected completed history includes review, renewed analysis, corrected drawings, resubmission and acceptance.
- Look for: Repeated submission is a new event occurrence. Compare this retrospective schedule with the app’s choices before outcomes are known.
- Limit: This successful history does not let a planner choose the review outcome. Its earliest schedule is not the policy’s worst-case sequential time.
- Depicted state: Default model, horizon 8; Inspect a completed plan → major revision, rerun analysis, correct drawings, resubmit, accept; witness 1, finish 9.
- Image description: The selected completed history includes review, renewed analysis, corrected drawings, resubmission and acceptance.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=feedback-history) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/feedback-history.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/feedback-history-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag-project-mountain-refuge/apps/feedback-plan-lab/)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Follow the particular wire

- View ID: process-contract-wires
- Home: Gimmer · process contracts
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Typed fragments connect eight event occurrences, three owned boundary inputs and two outputs in a refuge process.
- Look for: Follow the lift token separately from the material and permit wires; equal types do not silently merge ownership.
- Limit: A finite supplied construction and its selected witness. Matching port types alone do not establish physical feasibility or an unrestricted composition theorem.
- Depicted state: Build with actual wires → Build the refuge from typed fragments → Compose with wires; default durations.
- Image description: Typed fragments connect eight event occurrences, three owned boundary inputs and two outputs in a refuge process.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=process-contract-wires) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/process-contract-wires.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/process-contract-wires-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag-project-mountain-refuge/apps/process-contract-lab/)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Which capabilities are retained, extended or added?

- View ID: organisation-comparison
- Home: Shared waters · organisation comparison
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: An authored correspondence relates the current sell–design–build organisation to an intended organisation with explicit capability additions.
- Look for: Retained and extended processes sit above the new marketing, procurement and design-centre capabilities.
- Limit: An inventory correspondence. It is not yet a proved functor or a generated transformation plan.
- Depicted state: Default current/intended comparison; all three capability additions selected: 9 retained, 1 extended, 4 added.
- Image description: An authored correspondence relates the current sell–design–build organisation to an intended organisation with explicit capability additions.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=organisation-comparison) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/organisation-comparison.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/organisation-comparison-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/shared-dynamics/compare.html#compare-diagram)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## How widely do outcomes spread under one policy?

- View ID: programme-policy-fan
- Home: Programme decisions · earlier climate model
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The selected PFA policy produces a median and a tenth-to-ninetieth-percentile band of simulated observed temperatures by quarter.
- Look for: Compare the median, uncertainty band and horizontal guardrail; change policy in the app to redraw this view.
- Limit: Invented climate dynamics and objective. This single-policy fan is neither a forecast nor a direct comparison of every policy.
- Depicted state: Policy lab & framing; PFA selected; 120 common-random-number paths; seed 2205; default model.
- Image description: The selected PFA policy produces a median and a tenth-to-ninetieth-percentile band of simulated observed temperatures by quarter.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=programme-policy-fan) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/programme-policy-fan.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/programme-policy-fan-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Programme-decision-sequences/index.html#climate-model)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## A section makes one interpretation inspectable

- View ID: triangle-section
- Home: Local to Global · early AI interpretation
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The early Tangled Triangle interpretation places the canal, road, viaduct, power line and mining passage in a schematic section.
- Look for: Switch between plan and section in the source to ask which interfaces the same site account retains.
- Limit: Fictional, unsurveyed geometry; no clearance, development-envelope or engineering-feasibility check. This belongs to the earlier interpretation enquiry.
- Depicted state: Section View selected; no feature selected.
- Image description: The early Tangled Triangle interpretation places the canal, road, viaduct, power line and mining passage in a schematic section.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=triangle-section) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/triangle-section.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/triangle-section-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/local-to-global/tangled-triangle/regional-signalling-control-centre-site-geometry-topology.html)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## A calendar bucket can contain a hidden dependency

- View ID: spine-slice-audit
- Home: Project Spines · slice audit
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Two valid antichain slices are followed by a marked bucket containing a dependency between its own activities.
- Look for: The red relation challenges the final slice: work in one time bucket is not necessarily incomparable.
- Limit: A precedence audit. Pairwise incomparability does not prove simultaneous resource availability or operational feasibility.
- Depicted state: Antichain slice audit tab; original static spine-and-slices illustration.
- Image description: Two valid antichain slices are followed by a marked bucket containing a dependency between its own activities.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=spine-slice-audit) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/spine-slice-audit.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/spine-slice-audit-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/project-spines/#slice-audit)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Different arrows carry different obligations

- View ID: innovation-typed-paths
- Home: Meta Project Innovation · Project Frontier Lab
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Precedence, evidence, approval and feedback links connect seven parts of the fictional cloud migration.
- Look for: Open Structure in the app; compare the return feedback arrow with the path towards a release decision.
- Limit: Typed reachability is not proof that every prerequisite has been met or release has been authorised. Geometry is only layout.
- Depicted state: Structure / Inspect dependencies; default eight active links, no node outage; optional e9 and e10 inactive.
- Image description: Precedence, evidence, approval and feedback links connect seven parts of the fictional cloud migration.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=innovation-typed-paths) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/innovation-typed-paths.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/innovation-typed-paths-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/meta-project-innovation/)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Which assumed arrow makes adjustment necessary?

- View ID: causal-assumed-arrows
- Home: Counterfactuals · causal assumptions
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Team capacity is assumed to influence both automation and throughput, alongside the proposed automation-to-throughput effect.
- Look for: Use Keep Capacity → Automation, then challenge that one arrow in the source; compare the graphical adjustment requirement.
- Limit: These arrows are assumptions to investigate. A graphical adjustment set neither validates them nor estimates an effect.
- Depicted state: Common cause: team capacity; all variables observed, no conditioning; Capacity → Automation retained.
- Image description: Team capacity is assumed to influence both automation and throughput, alongside the proposed automation-to-throughput effect.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=causal-assumed-arrows) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/causal-assumed-arrows.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/causal-assumed-arrows-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/counterfactuals/#paths)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## The finished crossing is only part of the promise

- View ID: staged-corridor-readiness
- Home: Co-design · staged wildlife crossing
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: A selected construction path separates readiness available during work from commissioned readiness after each slot.
- Look for: Compare the during-work and after-slot traces with the review promise; a good endpoint can still have an unacceptable route.
- Limit: Fictional readiness bands and finite supplied actions, not ecological performance or an engineering forecast.
- Depicted state: Keep the corridor ready; horizon 8, baseline 1, review slot 4/band 2, two crews and access units; mobile monitoring available; default selected path.
- Image description: A selected construction path separates readiness available during work from commissioned readiness after each slot.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=staged-corridor-readiness) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/staged-corridor-readiness.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/staged-corridor-readiness-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/project-co-design/apps/staged-paths.html)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Compare neighbourhoods without flattening relationships

- View ID: bracken-relationship-neighbourhoods
- Home: Bracken Vale · relationship layers
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Larch Junction and North Spur share some actors while retaining distinct agreements, affiliations, alliances and tensions.
- Look for: The two original diagrams are placed side by side for comparison. Dashed lines mark unconfirmed relationships; an isolated review role remains visible.
- Limit: Fictional typed relationships. Position is not influence, an arrow is not a command, and shared actors do not establish agreement or causality.
- Depicted state: Default Larch Junction / North Spur comparison; all four layers visible; no edited evidence. Two rendered diagrams placed side by side without relayout.
- Image description: Larch Junction and North Spur share some actors while retaining distinct agreements, affiliations, alliances and tensions.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=bracken-relationship-neighbourhoods) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/bracken-relationship-neighbourhoods.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/bracken-relationship-neighbourhoods-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/bracken-vale/apps/relationship-layers/)
- Capture: Two rendered SVGs retained and placed side by side without relayout; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Follow an outcome back to its supporting work

- View ID: solway-support-map
- Home: Solway · work that must exist
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Unit acceptance and a clear handover site point back to installation, inspection and shared temporary-access work in one generated route.
- Look for: The gantry appears beneath several outcomes but retains one identity in the plan.
- Limit: Conditional on the finite brief, permitted methods and authored obligations. These reasons are not a complete engineered tunnel WBS.
- Depicted state: Both units requested; open access; gantry and trolley permitted; default shortest six-action route; Follow the reasons tab.
- Image description: Unit acceptance and a clear handover site point back to installation, inspection and shared temporary-access work in one generated route.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=solway-support-map) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/solway-support-map.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/solway-support-map-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Solway_tunnel_ontology/apps/work-that-must-exist/index.html#support-map)
- Capture: Browser screenshot of the selected working view; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Keep filing, interpretation and source use distinct

- View ID: reading-source-uses
- Home: Portfolio Wave · reading map
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Five selected readings connect to the Geometry of Interaction collection and enquiry through differently typed relationships.
- Look for: Thin membership lines and green editorial-use arrows answer different questions; all sources have equal size.
- Limit: A dated public selection with interpreted source uses. Filing and tags do not prove importance, equivalence or scientific validity.
- Depicted state: Snapshot 2026-10-03; Geometry of Interaction scope; Collections and source uses; Columns by kind; 5 sources, 7 items, 11 relationships.
- Image description: Five selected readings connect to the Geometry of Interaction collection and enquiry through differently typed relationships.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=reading-source-uses) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/reading-source-uses.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/reading-source-uses-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Tag_Concurrence_Graph/pw_best.html)
- Capture: Browser screenshot of the selected working view; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Which concepts occur together in the reading?

- View ID: tag-concurrence-network
- Home: Tag Concurrence · reading concepts
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: A detail of the supplied tag graph exposes weighted connections around categories, wiring, planning and related concepts.
- Look for: Follow the separate lens–SMC–Para triangle; reopen the full graph to inspect the components outside this detail.
- Limit: Shared tags are a browsing clue, not causation, equivalence or source quality. This crop omits the separate lower components.
- Depicted state: Grid selected, edge weight at least 3; upper 870×780 detail, ending after the lens–SMC–Para triangle.
- Image description: A detail of the supplied tag graph exposes weighted connections around categories, wiring, planning and related concepts.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=tag-concurrence-network) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/tag-concurrence-network.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/tag-concurrence-network-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Tag_Concurrence_Graph/)
- Capture: Browser screenshot of the selected working view; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Two rings, one reserved hoist

- View ID: rotunda-finite-state
- Home: Bricklaying a Rotunda · finite construction
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The first transition reserves the single shared hoist for ring A while ring B remains unstarted.
- Look for: Read the placement countdown alongside the unused brick positions and the remaining fastest continuation.
- Limit: Two miniature cylindrical installations with supplied timing and resource rules; separate from the smooth-cylinder model and not a site forecast.
- Depicted state: Defaults: 4 bricks/course, 2 courses/ring, 1 hoist, placement 2, curing A2/B3; prefer A; replay position 1, state 5, 33 ticks remaining.
- Image description: The first transition reserves the single shared hoist for ring A while ring B remains unstarted.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=rotunda-finite-state) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/rotunda-finite-state.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/rotunda-finite-state-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/bricklaying-a-rotunda/apps/constructive-state/index.html#build)
- Capture: Browser screenshot of the selected working view; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## The next course needs the wall’s memory

- View ID: wall-state-update
- Home: Building a Wall · course by course
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: One accepted course becomes part of the wall while the line remains at its old position and the new top lacks a readiness declaration.
- Look for: Try the next laying step before preparing it: the existing wall is an explicit input, not another detached output tile.
- Limit: Finite supplied material and readiness rules. Declarations are inputs, not discovered structural safety or productivity evidence.
- Depicted state: Default supplies; Try to lay course 1 accepted; one course built, 16 bricks and 4 mortar units remain; no second preparation.
- Image description: One accepted course becomes part of the wall while the line remains at its old position and the new top lacks a readiness declaration.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wall-state-update) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wall-state-update.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wall-state-update-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/building_a_wall/apps/course-by-course/index.html#experiment)
- Capture: Rendered SVG exported from the visible app with computed styles; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Carry intervals through connected calculations

- View ID: composable-uncertainty
- Home: Functors for Projects · uncertainty wiring
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Supplied estimator, checker and footprint functions propagate interval inputs through the power-and-cooling example.
- Look for: Follow the complete serial chain and compare the input and output intervals. The diagram now fits its canvas.
- Limit: Authored functions and interval arithmetic. The drawing alone does not establish categorical laws, calibrated uncertainty or an assurance case.
- Depicted state: Default serial mode, feedback off; power [18,24] kW, ambient [18,28] °C; locally rendered corrected canvas from Functors PR53.
- Image description: Supplied estimator, checker and footprint functions propagate interval inputs through the power-and-cooling example.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=composable-uncertainty) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/composable-uncertainty.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/composable-uncertainty-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/functors-for_projects/apps/composable-uncertainty-wiring/index.html)
- Capture: Browser screenshot of the selected working view; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## An ontology separates kinds of project information

- View ID: solway-ontology-modules
- Home: Solway · Digital Construction ontology
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The retained Digital Construction module map places agents among variables, entities, information, processes and contexts.
- Look for: Agents is selected in this earlier source view; follow the module relationships before treating them as project dependencies.
- Limit: A vocabulary and module map, not generated project work or evidence that a specific tunnel plan is correct.
- Depicted state: Retained earlier ontology image pics/15.jpg; Agents module selected.
- Image description: The retained Digital Construction module map places agents among variables, entities, information, processes and contexts.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=solway-ontology-modules) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/solway-ontology-modules.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/solway-ontology-modules-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Solway_tunnel_ontology/apps/digital-construction-ontology/index.html)
- Capture: Retained original ontology image, converted to WebP; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/Solway_tunnel_ontology/pics/15.jpg)

## Threats cut across intended work

- View ID: farm-process-sets
- Home: Integrated risks & tasks
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Experiment
- Caption: Threat-bearing processes cut across the nested scopes of project intentions, deliberate actions and the processes implementing chosen WBS tasks.
- Look for: Compare pouring concrete and agreeing access with cattle passage and heavy rain; threat is relative to project objectives.
- Limit: A conceptual classification relative to the project, not a probability model or a universal ontology.
- Depicted state: Static explanatory process-set diagram; no selected simulation state.
- Image description: Threat-bearing processes cut across the nested scopes of project intentions, deliberate actions and the processes implementing chosen WBS tasks.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=farm-process-sets) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-process-sets.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/farm-process-sets-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/integrated_risks_tasks/#sets)
- Capture: Exact SVG returned by the source sets() export; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Possible in every case, but can the handler choose?

- View ID: local-information-partitions
- Home: Knowing enough to act together
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Experiment
- Caption: Three physically passable layouts offer no route that works across one indistinguishable group. An east-ready cue separates them into two useful choice groups.
- Look for: On the left no single passage works in every layout. On the right the cue makes an east-or-west instruction possible without revealing the exact layout.
- Limit: Three authored layouts, truthful signals and supplied decision checkpoints; not complete handling dynamics or real-world safety.
- Depicted state: Static contrast: one undifferentiated group versus the partition induced by an east-ready cue.
- Image description: Three physically passable layouts offer no route that works across one indistinguishable group. An east-ready cue separates them into two useful choice groups.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=local-information-partitions) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/local-information-partitions.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/local-information-partitions-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/knowing-enough/#question)
- Capture: Original source SVG copied byte for byte; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/knowing-enough/assets/possible-and-executable.svg)

## One load connection, explicit conditions

- View ID: wall-load-conditions
- Home: Building a Wall · wiring algebra
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Experiment
- Caption: The roof passes a load to the wall. Each box states its capacity and flag conditions, and a Boolean combiner joins their outputs at the outer boundary.
- Look for: Follow the Load wire through the roof and wall, then the two Boolean outputs into AND. Left to right is dependency, not elapsed time.
- Limit: Invented load units, supplied flags and authored relations; type compatibility is not a structural-safety or building-code check.
- Depicted state: Static typed roof, wall and Boolean-combiner diagram; no numeric test result is pictured.
- Image description: The roof passes a load to the wall. Each box states its capacity and flag conditions, and a Boolean combiner joins their outputs at the outer boundary.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wall-load-conditions) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wall-load-conditions.svg) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wall-load-conditions-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/building_a_wall/apps/wiring-algebra/index.html#picture-title)
- Capture: Static inline SVG extracted with the source SVG CSS; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Outputs and hoped-for benefits

- View ID: wv-scope-benefits-tree
- Home: Library · Trace outputs towards benefits
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Green scope branches meet blue benefit branches through explicit contribution hypotheses.
- Look for: Compare the solid grouping links with the “may contribute to” links crossing between the two trees.
- Limit: These links state hypotheses, not demonstrated causation or realised railway benefits.
- Depicted state: The full illustrative scope and benefit trees are visible, with track, stations and timetable outputs.
- Image description: Green scope tree and blue benefit tree joined by dashed contribution links.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-scope-benefits-tree) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-scope-benefits-tree.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-scope-benefits-tree-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/scope-benefits-tree/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/scope-benefits-tree.jpg)

## A checklist still has gaps

- View ID: wv-olaf-delivery-dashboard
- Home: Library · Olaf’s afternoon deliveries
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Delivery counts and individual staff confirmations expose exactly what remains unrecorded.
- Look for: The van and courier targets are still short; Helen remains unchecked even though Sam and Effie are checked.
- Limit: A fictional, page-local tally; recording every item does not establish that a real site is safe to close.
- Depicted state: Vans 2/3, lorries 2/2, skip lorries 1/1, couriers 4/5; Sam and Effie checked, Helen unchecked.
- Image description: A delivery checklist with two incomplete counts and one unchecked person.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-olaf-delivery-dashboard) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-olaf-delivery-dashboard.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-olaf-delivery-dashboard-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/olaf-delivery-dashboard/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/olaf-delivery-dashboard.jpg)

## A decision record takes shape

- View ID: wv-decision-path-guide
- Home: Library · Find the kind of decision you are making
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: The questionnaire leaves a visible trail from a statement decision through its context to an accepted option.
- Look for: The highlighted next question asks what object the decision affects; the unchosen statement options remain visible.
- Limit: This structures an entered record. It does not decide whether accepting the proposal is justified.
- Depicted state: Statement decision; context “A small pilot project”; Accept selected; object question pending.
- Image description: Decision-path graph showing a pilot-project context, Accept, and a yellow DecisionObject question.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-decision-path-guide) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-decision-path-guide.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-decision-path-guide-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/decision-path-guide/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/decision-path-guide.jpg)

## Moving along or beyond a frontier

- View ID: wv-pareto-projects
- Home: Library · Find a better trade-off together
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Two drawn curves distinguish a trade-off within the assumed options from an illustrative improvement in those options.
- Look for: At apparent progress 25, the red segment rises from 50 to 70 on the real-progress axis.
- Limit: The curves and improvement are authored examples, not an optimisation result or evidence that the higher frontier is achievable.
- Depicted state: Strategy 25 selected; improved curve displayed; current value 50 and illustrative improved value 70.
- Image description: Blue and green trade-off curves with a red vertical improvement at apparent progress 25.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-pareto-projects) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-pareto-projects.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-pareto-projects-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/pareto_projects/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/pareto_projects.jpg)

## How two uncertainties move together

- View ID: wv-copula-risk-analysis
- Home: Library · When do task delays happen together?
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A sampled Gaussian copula displays dependence before the uniform values are transformed into task-delay distributions.
- Look for: Follow the diagonal concentration of points, then distinguish the latent normal parameter from the correlation of transformed delays.
- Limit: Synthetic uniform-scale draws; the axes are not days. A Gaussian copula does not provide upper-tail dependence.
- Depicted state: Copula view with latent normal correlation 0.70; one random sample is displayed.
- Image description: Purple points rising diagonally across two uniform-scale axes at latent correlation 0.70.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-copula-risk-analysis) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-copula-risk-analysis.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-copula-risk-analysis-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/copula-risk-analysis/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/copula-risk-analysis.jpg)

## Inspect a capability profile

- View ID: wv-capabilities-wiring-diag
- Home: Library · Match a task to a capability
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A selected model profile highlights an authored set of inputs, processing capabilities and outputs.
- Look for: Structured Files is selected; compare the highlighted cards with the faded cards in the other columns.
- Limit: A historical conceptual map, not a current benchmark, a proven pipeline or a model architecture diagram.
- Depicted state: Historical Gemini 1.5 Pro profile selected; Structured Files detail open.
- Image description: Three columns of capability cards, with Structured Files selected and some capabilities faded.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-capabilities-wiring-diag) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-capabilities-wiring-diag.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-capabilities-wiring-diag-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/capabilities-wiring-diag/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/capabilities-wiring-diag.jpg)

## A slice of the project-tool timeline

- View ID: wv-pm-software-evolution
- Home: Library · Follow the changing project-tool landscape
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Dated software milestones occupy parallel category rows, with interpretive connections between them.
- Look for: JIRA Agile is selected at 2013; compare its row with the cloud collaboration and low-code entries.
- Limit: An authored historical selection. Connecting lines do not establish product inheritance or causal influence.
- Depicted state: All Categories selected; timeline centred on the 2009–2016 period; JIRA Agile highlighted.
- Image description: A software timeline showing Trello, JIRA Agile, Asana, Slack and Airtable in different rows.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-pm-software-evolution) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-pm-software-evolution.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-pm-software-evolution-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/pm-software-evolution/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/pm-software-evolution.jpg)

## A severe risk in a moderate band

- View ID: wv-risk-matrix
- Home: Library · Build and interpret a risk matrix
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Delayed materials occupies the severe-impact row at likelihood three, yielding the example’s moderate score of fifteen.
- Look for: Move one column right in the source app and the same impact enters the high band at twenty.
- Limit: Ordered ratings and authored bands are not measured probabilities, expected loss or an acceptance decision.
- Depicted state: Delayed materials placed at likelihood 3 and impact 5; score 15, Moderate.
- Image description: Five-by-five risk matrix with Delayed materials in the severe-impact, possible-likelihood cell.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-risk-matrix) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-risk-matrix.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-risk-matrix-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/risk-matrix/#matrix-heading)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/risk-matrix.jpg)

## Three options tie after a weight change

- View ID: wv-weighted-decision-matrix
- Home: Library · Compare options with weighted criteria
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Raising affordability’s weight makes three differently scored vendors joint leaders in the weighted comparison.
- Look for: Read the shared total of 5.2 and normalised score of 3.714, then compare the different score patterns behind them.
- Limit: The result is conditional on entered judgements and compensating criteria; it is not evidence that the vendors are equivalent.
- Depicted state: Weights: affordability 0.7, quality 0.4, support 0.3; Vendor A, B and C all joint highest.
- Image description: An editable weighted decision table with all three vendors highlighted as joint highest.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-weighted-decision-matrix) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-weighted-decision-matrix.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-weighted-decision-matrix-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/weighted-decision-matrix/#matrix-container)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/weighted-decision-matrix.jpg)

## Four tasks, four suggested responses

- View ID: wv-eisenhower-matrix
- Home: Library · Sort tasks by urgency and importance
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A task map separates urgency from importance and exposes the threshold that creates its four suggested actions.
- Look for: Task 2 is highly important but less urgent; compare it with the equally important Task 1 in the immediate-action quadrant.
- Limit: The quadrants are prompts for judgement. They omit dependencies, effort, capacity and whether delegation is possible.
- Depicted state: Four example tasks loaded at (5,5), (2,5), (4,2) and (1,1).
- Image description: Urgency–importance chart with one numbered task in each of four quadrants.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-eisenhower-matrix) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-eisenhower-matrix.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-eisenhower-matrix-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/eisenhower-matrix/#chart)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/eisenhower-matrix.jpg)

## Follow work into a product

- View ID: wv-wbs-to-pbs
- Home: Library · Follow work into products
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Parallel work and product hierarchies reveal the supplied relationship between enabling works and prepared sites.
- Look for: The selected work item has an outlined counterpart in the product tree; those links differ from each tree’s parent–child grouping.
- Limit: An illustrative legacy rail dataset, not a current HS2 baseline. Cross-tree links are supplied, not inferred or proved.
- Depicted state: P1 Enabling Works highlighted; P1 Prepared Sites outlined; 26 work items and 25 outputs in the example.
- Image description: Work and product trees with Enabling Works linked to Prepared Sites.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-wbs-to-pbs) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-wbs-to-pbs.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-wbs-to-pbs-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/wbs-to-pbs/#wbs-root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/wbs-to-pbs.jpg)

## Empty regions in assumed capability scores

- View ID: wv-white-space-analysis
- Home: Library · Explore gaps in a capability map
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Pairwise plots compare five fictional firms with an entrant hypothesis and highlight unoccupied upper-right rectangles.
- Look for: The visible top row changes which capability is paired with OT depth; each shaded region has an explicit threshold and area.
- Limit: Geometric emptiness among invented points does not demonstrate market demand, feasibility or a business opportunity.
- Depicted state: Four dimensions selected; the visible top row shows Productised IP, Industrial data/AI and Commercial innovation versus OT depth.
- Image description: Three capability scatterplots with fictional-firm dots, entrant diamonds and green empty regions.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-white-space-analysis) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-white-space-analysis.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-white-space-analysis-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/white-space-analysis/#plots)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/white-space-analysis.jpg)

## A need, a service and intervention levels

- View ID: wv-service-trident
- Home: Library · Separate capability, maturity and performance
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: The selected performance need maps to a suggested lead service, while intervention levels are chosen separately.
- Look for: Programme and Project are selected together; changing the need does not silently replace those choices.
- Limit: An authored conversation guide, not a diagnosis, maturity assessment or recommendation supported by client evidence.
- Depicted state: Performance selected; Programme Assurance & Recovery suggested; Programme and Project intervention levels selected.
- Image description: Three linked selection columns and a summary for Performance, Programme Assurance and Recovery, Programme and Project.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-service-trident) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-service-trident.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-service-trident-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/service-trident/#need-heading)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/service-trident.jpg)

## Influence and interest are different axes

- View ID: wv-stakeholder-mapper
- Home: Library · Who needs a different conversation?
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Four invented assessments put stakeholders in different parts of a power–interest map.
- Look for: Contrast the high-interest, lower-power point with the high-power, lower-interest point before choosing an engagement approach.
- Limit: Scores and the split at fifty are judgements. Low power is not a reason to exclude someone affected by a project.
- Depicted state: Four starting assessments loaded; map split at 50 on both axes; no stakeholder selected.
- Image description: Power–interest grid with four numbered points, one in each suggested engagement quadrant.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-stakeholder-mapper) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-stakeholder-mapper.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-stakeholder-mapper-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/stakeholder-mapper/#map-title)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/stakeholder-mapper.jpg)

## Give candidate work a primary home

- View ID: wv-contract-portfolio-board
- Home: Library · Contract Portfolio Board
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A Digital Strategy workstream contains two artefacts in Contract 2, while requirements and stakeholder analysis remain unassigned.
- Look for: Compare proposed supplier packages with the separate Context, Internal ownership and Concept of operations areas below.
- Limit: Allocation is a planning choice. It does not create a supplier obligation, transfer accountability or establish scope completeness.
- Depicted state: Digital Strategy in Contract 2 contains Project charter and Future state processes; two other artefacts are unassigned.
- Image description: Three contract columns, an unassigned column and separate context and retained-ownership areas.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-contract-portfolio-board) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-contract-portfolio-board.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-contract-portfolio-board-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/contract-portfolio-board/#contracts)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/contract-portfolio-board.png)

## Trace a risk judgement into a choice

- View ID: wv-project-decision-graph
- Home: Library · Follow a decision through a project graph
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A fictional concrete-quality problem is connected to risk assessments, reliability values, supplier replacement and schedule effects.
- Look for: Follow the assumed links from material quality variance to quality failure, then compare the reliability and schedule branches.
- Limit: A teaching graph inspired by a value-and-risk ontology. The relationships and outcomes are assumptions, not an evidenced incident or an ontology-conformance result.
- Depicted state: Full fictional decision network visible, including supplier replacement and construction delay; no detail node selected.
- Image description: Coloured concept nodes link a fictional viaduct, material quality, risk assessments, supplier choice and construction delay.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-project-decision-graph) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-project-decision-graph.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-project-decision-graph-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-decision-graph/#network)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/project-decision-graph.jpg)

## Where can this state graph get stuck?

- View ID: wv-project-viability-navigator
- Home: Library · Explore project states and possible traps
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Five invented project states are connected by weighted possible moves, with closed classes and accumulated visits shown on the graph.
- Look for: Compare the start-state outline, dashed closed-class markings and differing line thicknesses rather than reading colour as a forecast.
- Limit: Assumed scores and weights support a finite graph exercise, not a viability kernel, control policy, causal claim or project forecast.
- Depicted state: Baseline Ops start; viability threshold 0.50; active-edge cutoff 0; seven active transitions and visit highlighting visible.
- Image description: Five-state steel-mill toy graph with Baseline Ops, New Vendor, Automation, Industrial Action and Market Shock.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-project-viability-navigator) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-project-viability-navigator.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-project-viability-navigator-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-viability-navigator/#graph-panel)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot, reused without redrawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/project-viability-navigator.jpg)

## When a review changes the next move

- View ID: review-uncertainty-trace
- Home: Library · A project review changes the next move
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A review record sits above a trace of the walkthrough’s illustrative uncertainty score. The newly recognised integration and model complexity change the scripted resource decision.
- Look for: Advance through the five reviews and compare each recorded decision with the score and feature estimates.
- Limit: The score is a teaching analogy, not calculated variational free energy, a probability or an optimal policy.
- Depicted state: Retained screenshot: step 3 of 5, Mid-Project Review; score 110 after the earlier rise to 120.
- Image description: Mid-project review text above an illustrative score curve that rises from 100 to 120 and falls to 110.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=review-uncertainty-trace) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-review-uncertainty-trace.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-review-uncertainty-trace-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-management-simulation/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/project-management-simulation.jpg)

## Watch work, learning and debt move together

- View ID: team-dynamics-trajectories
- Home: Library · A software team learns and reworks
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Three time-series panels keep scope and progress, quality and morale, and velocity and capability distinct. The event log records the modelled changes behind one run.
- Look for: Advance weeks, compare the event log with the curves, then turn an effect off before a fresh run.
- Limit: Invented stochastic feedback rules; the pictured run is not a reproducible forecast or evidence of team performance.
- Depicted state: Retained week-8 run with all six effects enabled; 54.2 of 107 scope points complete.
- Image description: Progress trails scope while the neighbouring panels show quality, morale, technical debt, velocity and team capability over eight weeks.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=team-dynamics-trajectories) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-team-dynamics-trajectories.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-team-dynamics-trajectories-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-dynamics-simulator/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/project-dynamics-simulator.jpg)

## Find the question behind a capability

- View ID: maturity-question-map
- Home: Library · Discuss data maturity in context
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Capability columns branch into practices and numbered questions. The level filters distinguish questions about individuals, teams and the organisation.
- Look for: Open a branch or question and compare its proposed scoring guide with the concrete evidence an answer would need.
- Limit: A supplied question bank, not a validated maturity scale; the app does not collect answers or calculate an organisational score.
- Depicted state: Retained Graph View with selected question branches expanded, including Q1, Q6, Q18, Q23 and Q19.
- Image description: Coloured data-capability columns connect practice boxes to numbered questions marked with individual, team or organisational levels.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=maturity-question-map) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-maturity-question-map.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-maturity-question-map-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/data-maturity-combined/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/data-maturity-combined.jpg)

## Trace a learning route through project controls

- View ID: controls-learning-route
- Home: Library · Find your way into project controls
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: An orange numbered teaching route overlays the grey concept relationships. It visits cost control, performance measurement, earned value, forecasting and the project-controller role.
- Look for: Follow the guided PM-to-PC route, then leave it and inspect the selected concept’s actual recorded relationships.
- Limit: The teaching sequence is separate from the knowledge graph; it does not add causal links or prescribe universal accountabilities.
- Depicted state: Retained guided-route screenshot with step 8, Project Controller, selected.
- Image description: Orange numbered arrows connect controls concepts over a grey relationship graph, ending at the selected Project Controller node.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=controls-learning-route) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-controls-learning-route.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-controls-learning-route-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-controls-knowledge-graph/#root)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/project-controls-knowledge-graph.jpg)

## Put decision times beside the work

- View ID: decision-times-beside-work
- Home: Library · Trace decisions beside overlapping work
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A task timeline sits beside five elapsed decision-time bars. Selecting either side highlights the supplied associations between decisions and activities.
- Look for: Select Security review or one of its associated tasks and compare the highlighted bars across the two panels.
- Limit: There are no dated decisions or tested gating rules; these elapsed times cannot be added to the schedule as caused delay.
- Depicted state: Retained overview: all activities and decisions shown; five decision times range from one to five days.
- Image description: A June task timeline is paired with bars for data-model approval, library selection, security review, QA sign-off and go-live approval.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=decision-times-beside-work) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-decision-times-beside-work.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-decision-times-beside-work-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/decision-latency/#gantt)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/decision-latency.jpg)

## See which delay moves the finish

- View ID: critical-float-timeline
- Home: Library · Find the delay that moves the finish
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Dependency links connect seven task bars. Brown zero-float tasks form the critical route while green bars show tasks with spare time.
- Look for: Add one unit to A, reset, then add one unit to B; compare the project finish and total-float table.
- Limit: A deterministic finish-to-start example without calendars, resources, lags, costs or duration uncertainty.
- Depicted state: Retained baseline: finish at 9 units; B, D, F and zero-duration G are critical.
- Image description: Seven labelled task bars with dashed dependency links show the critical B-D-F-G route reaching a diamond finish at nine units.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=critical-float-timeline) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-critical-float-timeline.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-critical-float-timeline-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/critical-path-spotter/#timeline)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/critical-path-spotter.jpg)

## Keep funding and milestone claims inspectable

- View ID: project-data-check-visuals
- Home: Library · Check the shape and meaning of project data
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Parsed project records become a planned/forecast/actual milestone view and a funding comparison. Separate marks and labels keep dates, total forecast and spend-to-date distinguishable.
- Look for: Validate the example, then alter a milestone date or funding currency and inspect which comparison is still justified.
- Limit: Illustrative data checks, not official certification. Partial CAPEX coverage is not proof of a funding shortfall; currencies are not converted.
- Depicted state: Retained fictional record after validation: two milestones and baseline, forecast, spend-to-date and CAPEX bars.
- Image description: Milestone date symbols appear beside four funding bars, with an explicit warning to check the budget’s coverage.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=project-data-check-visuals) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-project-data-check-visuals.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-project-data-check-visuals-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-data-standard/#visuals)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/project-data-standard.jpg)

## Inspect a changed task network

- View ID: rewritten-task-network
- Home: Library · See what a plan rewrite changes
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: The editable precedence network and task inspector expose the assumed order, duration and properties of work. A selected finish-buffer record also retains the rule that produced it.
- Look for: Save a scenario, select a task or link, try one rewrite and compare the resulting earliest and resource schedules.
- Limit: This is a precedence network rather than a deliverable WBS. Structural checks do not prove work is safely interchangeable; the buffer rule is a heuristic.
- Depicted state: Retained screenshot with the added two-unit illustrative finish buffer selected in the inspector.
- Image description: A task chain for pipe work sits next to an inspector showing a two-unit finish buffer and its independent-variance rule note.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=rewritten-task-network) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-rewritten-task-network.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-rewritten-task-network-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/wbs-rewriter/#network)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/wbs-rewriter.png)

## Read what changed in a date estimate

- View ID: schedule-what-if-receipt
- Home: Library · Explore the assumptions behind a delivery date
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A computed what-if receipt names the three pessimistic estimates changed, compares finish percentiles and preserves an editable account of the assumptions.
- Look for: Run a baseline, compare the 15% pessimistic-estimate reduction and read the exact changed inputs beneath the result.
- Limit: Model percentiles are not delivery assurance. Independent durations, missing resource constraints and the salience heuristic limit the comparison.
- Depicted state: Retained 5,000-run Beta-PERT comparison: baseline P90 22.16 to what-if 21.07 calendar days; T5, T4 and T8 changed.
- Image description: A what-if report lists three reduced pessimistic durations and a P90 change from 22.16 to 21.07 days, above an editable result narrative.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=schedule-what-if-receipt) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-schedule-what-if-receipt.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-schedule-what-if-receipt-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/date-defence-kit/#outputs)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/date-defence-kit.png)

## Follow a change across shared interfaces

- View ID: interface-spillover-network
- Home: Library · How changes spread between project interfaces
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Five project interfaces form a weighted relationship network beside the intervention controls. Shared parties determine how realised local changes can spill into neighbouring interfaces.
- Look for: Choose Network, change an interface attribute, and compare the network with the matrix, dashboard and action log.
- Limit: The coefficients and equal-weight summary index are invented; no causal strength or organisational performance has been measured.
- Depicted state: Retained step-0 Network view, PM–Design Trust selected; the value 60 is entered before applying a change.
- Image description: Five interface nodes are connected by differently weighted lines, next to controls for changing the selected PM–Design trust value.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=interface-spillover-network) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-interface-spillover-network.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-interface-spillover-network-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/interface-maturity/#controls)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/interface-maturity.png)

## Inspect why a governance rule passes

- View ID: governance-rule-receipts
- Home: Library · Inspect a governance trail
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Selected workflow events generate a synthetic log and separate rule receipts. The explanations expose which declared events and approval role satisfy each check.
- Look for: Clear a prerequisite event or change the approval role to Dev; inspect which receipt fails or becomes inapplicable.
- Limit: Event presence and a chosen role are checked, not real identities, independence, chronology or engineering acceptance.
- Depicted state: Retained all-events example with Lead as the approval role; five displayed rules pass.
- Image description: Six workflow-event checkboxes sit beside a synthetic event log and five passing rule receipts with their explanations.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=governance-rule-receipts) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-governance-rule-receipts.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-governance-rule-receipts-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/governance-trio/#assurance-records)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/governance-trio.png)

## See why a record enters a project view

- View ID: typed-graph-query-receipt
- Home: Library · Project graph views
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A parameterised PMO query returns typed milestone, risk and control cards with a computed risk summary. The query window, snapshot and result counts remain visible beside the output.
- Look for: Run the PMO milestone query, select a card for its inclusion reasons, then compare the receipt and full query lineage.
- Limit: Results follow supplied records and query rules. An Approved label is an input, and the maximum score includes controlled risks as well as unmitigated ones.
- Depicted state: Retained 2 October 2026 query snapshot: seven items, six links; Pier caps complete has one unmitigated risk and maximum risk score 25.
- Image description: A PMO query’s date and risk filters accompany typed result cards and a milestone summary with distinct unmitigated-count and maximum-score columns.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=typed-graph-query-receipt) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-typed-graph-query-receipt.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-typed-graph-query-receipt-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-graph-views/#preview)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/project-graph-views.png)

## Locate where the material waits

- View ID: waste-queues-and-capacity
- Home: Library · Waste-route capacity
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: Queue trajectories show accumulating material beside processing-capacity utilisation bars. Storage and assay queues can tell different stories even within the same route.
- Look for: Compare the baseline with a transport interruption and inspect both the queue chart and exact daily table.
- Limit: Fictional fractional-flow rules. Queues use conserved material units while storage capacity is entered in package-equivalents; this is not a facility or hazard forecast.
- Depicted state: Retained deterministic 180-day run; assay capacity 14, transport 12 and storage 120 package-equivalents.
- Image description: A purple assay queue rises across 180 days while a dashed storage queue levels off; utilisation bars below compare the processing stages.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=waste-queues-and-capacity) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-waste-queues-and-capacity.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-waste-queues-and-capacity-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/waste-route-capacity/#queueChart)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/waste-route-capacity.jpg)

## Compare the schedules behind a trade-off

- View ID: time-cost-frontier
- Home: Library · Time Exchange
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A discrete cost–makespan frontier sits beneath the baseline and selected schedules. Selecting an affordable point reveals which acceleration choices shorten the finish.
- Look for: Choose another frontier point and compare its schedule with the baseline and exported task choices.
- Limit: Exact only for the supplied bounded menus and precedence model; no shared-resource model, supplier payment or fair-price guarantee is implemented.
- Depicted state: Retained manual selection: 648 portfolios checked, 11 nondominated points; baseline 25 weeks, selected 24 weeks.
- Image description: Two task timelines compare a 25-week baseline and 24-week selected schedule above a descending cost–makespan frontier with a highlighted point.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=time-cost-frontier) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-time-cost-frontier.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-time-cost-frontier-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/project-time-exchange/#frontier-chart)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/project-time-exchange.jpg)

## Group records by their shared control tags

- View ID: control-evidence-concepts
- Home: Library · Scenario and control lattice
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A Formal Concept Analysis lattice pairs groups of risk records with all their shared control and evidence tags. The inspector exposes both the common attributes and the records grouped by them.
- Look for: Select the four-record training concept, inspect its extent and intent, then compare the input matrix and gap report.
- Limit: A recorded tag does not prove an effective control. Blank cells mean not recorded, and causal relationships are not inferred by the lattice.
- Depicted state: Retained hierarchy view: the selected concept groups four scenarios sharing a competency-training control and training-roster evidence tag.
- Image description: A concept lattice highlights the four-scenario training node, with an inspector listing its shared control, evidence tag and member records.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=control-evidence-concepts) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-control-evidence-concepts.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-control-evidence-concepts-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/scenario-control-lattice/#cy)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/scenario-control-lattice.jpg)

## Compare a contract’s links with its places

- View ID: procurement-place-projection
- Home: Library · Read a crossing project through its notices
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: The same selected procurement record appears as a relationship network and a geographic projection. Buyer, supplier, framework and place remain different kinds of object.
- Look for: Select the insurance-advisor notice, read its recorded relationships, then inspect what each mapped location actually represents.
- Limit: A frozen historical sample with some unverified rows. Office coordinates and a project anchor are not delivery geometry or evidence of operational collaboration.
- Depicted state: Retained insurance-advisor neighbourhood; online OpenStreetMap tiles enabled, three distinct coordinate points and no projected map lines.
- Image description: A UK map with office and project points sits beside the selected insurance-advisor contract’s buyer, supplier, framework and place neighbourhood.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=procurement-place-projection) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-procurement-place-projection.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-procurement-place-projection-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/crossing-project-map/#network)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/crossing-project-map.jpg)

## Test a theme against its supporting text

- View ID: annotation-evidence-tree
- Home: Library · Reading claims from project text
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Worked example
- Caption: A searchable coding tree keeps an earlier theme beside the draft annotation offered to support it. The visible MRI example makes a questionable leap from a technology claim to adoption explicit.
- Look for: Search MRI and open Change Velocity; consider what evidence would connect that annotation to adoption in project work.
- Limit: The retained annotations are unverified draft text without a source corpus or coding log; the tree is not proof of research findings or adoption trends.
- Depicted state: Retained coding-tree view filtered to MRI; one matching annotation under Practice Evolution Trajectory → Change Velocity.
- Image description: A theme tree highlights accelerating adoption curves and exposes the unverified MRI annotation originally used to support that claim.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=annotation-evidence-tree) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-annotation-evidence-tree.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-annotation-evidence-tree-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/library/apps/reading-project-evidence/#coding)
- Capture: Existing published app screenshot; no new drawing; recorded check date: 2026-10-04
- [Original source image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/library-apps/reading-project-evidence.jpg)

## Does a dated schedule satisfy its qualitative rules?

- View ID: wv-foray-allen-check
- Home: Solway · temporal constraints
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The experiment compares ten declared Allen interval constraints with relations computed from the example’s start and finish dates.
- Look for: Read Allowed beside Computed: meets, overlaps and during impose different temporal relationships.
- Limit: Checks one supplied date assignment. It neither solves every admissible schedule nor proves the time ontology consistent.
- Depicted state: Default eight-interval schedule; all ten displayed constraints pass.
- Image description: The experiment compares ten declared Allen interval constraints with relations computed from the example’s start and finish dates.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-allen-check) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-allen-check.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-allen-check-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Solway_tunnel_ontology/apps/ontologized-allen-schedule/#check-table)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Who owns the shared enabling work?

- View ID: wv-foray-solway-packages
- Home: Solway · work that must exist
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Six generated actions are grouped into shared access, Unit A and Unit B packages, while their support and protection links remain visible.
- Look for: The shared gantry is owned once. Both unit packages still depend on it and constrain when it may be removed.
- Limit: The packaging rule is supplied; the app does not discover a best organisation or a resource-loaded schedule.
- Depicted state: Default two-unit scope, open access, both methods allowed; Two work breakdowns tab, By delivered product.
- Image description: Six generated actions are grouped into shared access, Unit A and Unit B packages, while their support and protection links remain visible.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-solway-packages) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-solway-packages.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-solway-packages-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Solway_tunnel_ontology/apps/work-that-must-exist/#scope=both&access=open&methods=both&view=wbs)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Which dependencies have only one source?

- View ID: wv-foray-solway-weak
- Home: Solway · ontology audit
- Kind and catalogue status: diagram; Experiment
- Caption: A saved SPARQL query lists seven plan-critical assertions found in the D3 example but not corroborated by the accompanying ontology.
- Look for: Check the asserted edge type and its direction before treating an upstream item as a prerequisite.
- Limit: The 0.6 score is an authored provenance convention, not a calibrated probability. Label matching and agreement do not establish truth.
- Depicted state: Published embedded pipeline result, weak plan-critical edges query. No new inference run.
- Image description: A saved SPARQL query lists seven plan-critical assertions found in the D3 example but not corroborated by the accompanying ontology.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-solway-weak) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-solway-weak.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-solway-weak-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Solway_tunnel_ontology/apps/kglab-ontology-audit/#weak)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## What changes when this task is done?

- View ID: wv-foray-solway-action
- Home: Solway · handover game
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The gantry action card separates its preconditions, added fact and unchanged facts from physical deliverables and acceptance evidence.
- Look for: “Shared gantry available” enables later installation and inspection; it does not itself install either unit.
- Limit: An authored teaching action with illustrative hours and cost. The card is a proposed move, not evidence that the work happened.
- Depicted state: Mission 1, Start learning through play, before dispatch; Why this work matters expanded.
- Image description: The gantry action card separates its preconditions, added fact and unchanged facts from physical deliverables and acceptance evidence.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-solway-action) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-solway-action.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-solway-action-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Solway_tunnel_ontology/apps/semantic-tunnel-planner/#crew-briefing)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Which schedule does this token history support?

- View ID: wv-foray-marking-schedule
- Home: Gimmer · forward generation
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: A generated helicopter branch becomes an earliest schedule for six task occurrences, with one reusable lifting token passed between preparation tasks.
- Look for: Foundation preparation ends before panel preparation starts because this witness hands over the one lifting resource.
- Limit: Toy durations and a chosen token ancestry. This is one earliest representative, not every waiting-time choice or a global scheduling optimum.
- Depicted state: Generate both ways to complete the refuge; one lifting token; Work branch 1, Plan 1, finish 13.
- Image description: A generated helicopter branch becomes an earliest schedule for six task occurrences, with one reusable lifting token passed between preparation tasks.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-marking-schedule) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-marking-schedule.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-marking-schedule-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag-project-mountain-refuge/apps/marking-plan-lab/#timeline)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Which extra rules did the stages invent?

- View ID: wv-foray-causal-crossing
- Home: Gimmer · causal-plan test
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Three solid dependency arrows form an N-shaped order. Two dashed arrows expose additional ordering introduced by the stage grouping.
- Look for: The weather screen needs the scaffold, not certified anchors. Compare that selective dependency with the dashed added rule.
- Limit: The impossibility concerns this restricted leaf/sequence/parallel grammar and selected token-flow witness, not every kind of work breakdown.
- Depicted state: The N that a Seq/Par tree cannot preserve; first execution; Causal plan tab; Overlay the stage tree’s added rules checked.
- Image description: Three solid dependency arrows form an N-shaped order. Two dashed arrows expose additional ordering introduced by the stage grouping.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-causal-crossing) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-causal-crossing.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-causal-crossing-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag-project-mountain-refuge/apps/causal-plan-lab/#panel-causal)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## What must the response cover before the review arrives?

- View ID: wv-foray-feedback-policy
- Home: Gimmer · feedback policies
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The calculated review state retains current analysis and drawings while listing three uncontrolled outcomes the response policy must handle.
- Look for: At the environment’s turn the planner has no policy action to choose; acceptance, drawing correction and major revision remain enabled.
- Limit: The guarantee is conditional on the finite horizon and supplied fallback rule. It is not evidence of real supplier performance or uninterrupted service.
- Depicted state: Review, revise and retest; horizon 8; one reserved specialist package; Check the policy, state s1 with 7 events left.
- Image description: The calculated review state retains current analysis and drawings while listing three uncontrolled outcomes the response policy must handle.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-feedback-policy) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-feedback-policy.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-feedback-policy-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/gimmer-crag-project-mountain-refuge/apps/feedback-plan-lab/#panel-proof)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Do the local plans agree on their shared tasks?

- View ID: wv-foray-sheaf-conflict
- Home: Functors · local-plan consistency
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: A scheduled attempt sits above the overlap table: Planning and Integration disagree on B’s start, while Integration and Delivery disagree on C.
- Look for: The table exposes mismatches of three and two units. The red permits bar also misses its finish window.
- Limit: An earlier toy consistency checker, not full sheaf cohomology. The displayed attempt does not satisfy all constraints or establish an optimum.
- Depicted state: Patch conflict preset loaded; soft pins; two risk-smoothing rounds; no user data.
- Image description: A scheduled attempt sits above the overlap table: Planning and Integration disagree on B’s start, while Integration and Delivery disagree on C.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-sheaf-conflict) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-sheaf-conflict.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-sheaf-conflict-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/functors-for_projects/apps/sheaf-schedule-playground/#gantt)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Can either response meet both shared bounds?

- View ID: wv-foray-milestone-conflict
- Home: Functors · milestone context
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Two supplied responses fail different constraints: the faster consent-pipeline patch costs too much, and cheaper aggregate reporting takes too long.
- Look for: Compare 6 cost units with a 5-unit allowance, and 3 weeks with the 2-week window left after regulatory review.
- Limit: Only the shared response package is costed and timed. Neither a candidate nor a model result establishes legal compliance or milestone acceptance.
- Depicted state: Load the coupled conflict; shared scope authorised; Minimal policy; privacy, timing and budget changes on.
- Image description: Two supplied responses fail different constraints: the faster consent-pipeline patch costs too much, and cheaper aggregate reporting takes too long.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-milestone-conflict) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-milestone-conflict.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-milestone-conflict-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/functors-for_projects/apps/fibration-milestone-linking/#trace-heading)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Who can distinguish a completed move?

- View ID: wv-foray-knowing-possibilities
- Home: Knowing enough · local knowledge
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Six admitted histories are marked by whose local view still permits them. The actual completed move is outlined, but the curator still considers unfinished cases possible.
- Look for: Handlers appear only on the three complete cases; the curator appears on all six because no completion report has arrived.
- Limit: Authored observations, truthful participants and a finite case set. The outside-view selector never supplies information to the curator.
- Depicted state: No shared information; reports may be missing; actual case east-only, complete, no report or receipt.
- Image description: Six admitted histories are marked by whose local view still permits them. The actual completed move is outlined, but the curator still considers unfinished cases possible.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-knowing-possibilities) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-knowing-possibilities.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-knowing-possibilities-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/knowing-enough/?case=east-only-complete-r0-a0#perspective-heading)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## What is the least information work this brief needs?

- View ID: wv-foray-knowing-arrangements
- Home: Knowing enough · derived arrangements
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Exhaustive comparison of 64 intervention subsets returns two equally cheapest arrangements: a route cue and a scheduled curator inspection.
- Look for: Either east-ready or west-ready information suffices. Each combines with direct inspection for four illustrative effort units.
- Limit: Least effort within six supplied options and authored prices. It does not derive the physical move, guarantee completion or forecast human effort.
- Depicted state: Default route-and-reopening goal; uncertain report delivery; default effort costs; all 64 subsets checked.
- Image description: Exhaustive comparison of 64 intervention subsets returns two equally cheapest arrangements: a route cue and a scheduled curator inspection.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-knowing-arrangements) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-knowing-arrangements.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-knowing-arrangements-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/knowing-enough/?case=east-only-complete-r0-a0#synthesis-heading)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Is adapting worth the survey and the wait?

- View ID: wv-foray-evidence-value
- Home: Programme decisions · evidence value
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The existing value bridge separates the gain from adapting the bus reservation from survey fees and waiting costs, leaving a net policy value of 17.5.
- Look for: Follow 15 + 9.5 − 4 − 3: more information earns its place only after its costs are counted.
- Limit: Expected service-value points in a fictional binary-demand model, not transport costs, realised profit or a forecast.
- Depicted state: Worth buying preset at review 0: prior .5, survey accuracy .8, routine accuracy .5, fee 4, delay cost 3, deadline 2, latency 1.
- Image description: The existing value bridge separates the gain from adapting the bus reservation from survey fees and waiting costs, leaving a net policy value of 17.5.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-evidence-value) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-evidence-value.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-evidence-value-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/Programme-decision-sequences/evidence.html#value-bridge)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Can the same brick count permit different next moves?

- View ID: wv-foray-rotunda-witness
- Home: Bricklaying a Rotunda · sufficient state
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: A computed counterexample pairs two states with no placed bricks: one can start B’s first brick, while the other has already reserved the hoist for that placement.
- Look for: The placed-brick summary hides active work. Compare the admissible command with the one-tick reservation.
- Limit: A finite, supplied construction model. Refinement checks this state machine; the picture is not a physical structural model.
- Depicted state: Default 4 bricks, 2 courses, one hoist, placement 2, cure A 2/B 3; What state is enough, Placed bricks only; states 0 and 1.
- Image description: A computed counterexample pairs two states with no placed bricks: one can start B’s first brick, while the other has already reserved the hoist for that placement.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-rotunda-witness) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-rotunda-witness.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-rotunda-witness-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/bricklaying-a-rotunda/apps/constructive-state/#state)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Can we regroup without changing the behaviour?

- View ID: wv-foray-wall-associativity
- Home: Building a Wall · relational composition
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The published associativity panel shows two groupings of the same typed chain alongside the completed comparison of 216 relation triples.
- Look for: The boxes keep their order; only the grouping changes. Both expressions hide the same intermediate values.
- Limit: The fixture checks exercise this implementation. They are not a proof for arbitrary relations, and regrouping does not authorise reordering work.
- Depicted state: Run relation checks pressed; Associativity panel, all 216 fixture triples agree.
- Image description: The published associativity panel shows two groupings of the same typed chain alongside the completed comparison of 216 relation triples.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-wall-associativity) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-wall-associativity.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-wall-associativity-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/building_a_wall/apps/wiring-algebra/#rules)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## Do lanes and stages give the same composite?

- View ID: wv-foray-wall-interchange
- Home: Building a Wall · interchange
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: Two independent typed chains are grouped by lane, with the interchange equation and the completed check of 1,296 relation quadruples.
- Look for: Toggle the source’s grouping control to compare by lane with by stage; the same two chains remain.
- Limit: Independence belongs to the model. It does not establish concurrent access to a shared worker, and finite checks are not a general proof.
- Depicted state: Run relation checks pressed; Interchange panel in default lane grouping; 1,296 comparisons agree.
- Image description: Two independent typed chains are grouped by lane, with the interchange equation and the completed check of 1,296 relation quadruples.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-wall-interchange) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-wall-interchange.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-wall-interchange-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/building_a_wall/apps/wiring-algebra/#rules)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04

## What is the difference between false and no allowed result?

- View ID: wv-foray-wall-rejected
- Home: Building a Wall · boundary contract
- Kind and catalogue status: interactive; Experiment
- Caption: The overloaded-wall calculation returns an empty set of permitted outputs, while a separate total diagnostic returns false.
- Look for: Load 80 exceeds the joint bound of 66.667 after the wall capacity falls to 100. The roof check still passes.
- Limit: A scalar teaching calculation with supplied flags and invented units. It neither checks building regulations nor establishes structural safety.
- Depicted state: Overload the wall pressed: load 80, roof 140, wall 100, both factors 1.5 and both assertions supplied.
- Image description: The overloaded-wall calculation returns an empty set of permitted outputs, while a separate total diagnostic returns false.
- [Preview this view](https://experimentsin.ai/explore-visually.html?view=wv-foray-wall-rejected) · [Full image](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-wall-rejected.webp) · [Thumbnail](https://experimentsin.ai/images/visual-explorer/wv-foray-wall-rejected-thumb.webp) · [Original example](https://experimentsin.ai/building_a_wall/apps/wiring-algebra/#scenarioResult)
- Capture: Cropped screenshot of the existing published app; original diagram/output retained without redrawing.; recorded check date: 2026-10-04