0xDarkMatterandGitHub
de75c0adb5
Add Treemap as the 28th visual type with light, dark, and editorial variants; area, label, and information-marker verification; synchronized documentation and manifests; and plugin version 2.5.0.
2.0 KiB
ADR 0002 — Semantic patterns never expand the 27-type taxonomy
Status: accepted (v2.3)
Context
Auditing behavior-rich figures (queues, policy traces, trust boundaries) showed the skill could arrange boxes but not model system behavior. The obvious fix — new diagram types — would balloon the taxonomy, dilute the selection guide, and force every new behavior into a new layout grammar.
Decision
Behavior is a separate axis. The seven semantic patterns in references/semantic-patterns.md each route to the nearest existing visual type for layout; a pattern owns semantic primitives and a tighter budget, never a second layout grammar. The visual-type count stays at 27 unless a genuinely new layout grammar appears.
Consequences
- The visual-type count is a stable, verifiable claim (
verify-semantic-motion.pyandverify-docs-sync.pyboth count it) — 27 when this record was accepted; see Amendments for the current figure. - A new behavior costs one pattern section plus a routing-table row — not a new type reference, template set, and example triple.
- If a pattern ever needs a layout no existing type provides, that is the signal to add a type, with the full §10 shipping set.
Amendments
2026-08-18 — the count is 28. Treemap was admitted under the escape clause above: recursive area subdivision is a layout grammar no existing type provides (bar encodes with length, nested with containment and no quantity, pyramid with rank). It shipped the full §10 set, and the counters named above moved 27 → 28 together with the prose.
The decision itself is unchanged — semantic patterns still never add a type, and the count still moves only for a new layout grammar. What this amendment records is the procedure: the two counters are this ADR's enforcement, so a PR that edits them without amending this file has quietly made itself the authority. Amend here in the same PR, or the number in the test is just whatever the last contributor typed.