ASM Chapter 2 | All Figures | v0.3 | Use browser Print (Ctrl+P / Cmd+P) to export individual figures

Figure 2.1
The Two Axes: From Descriptive Assignment to Structural Derivation
Panel A: Failed Axis / Cognitive Distance
Assigned by designer judgment
Stable
Ds
Lm
Wm
Ss
Is
Ce
Fs
Anomalous
Sm
? placement
Em
? placement
Rt
vs Wt?
Placement not resolvable
by structural principle
Abstract ↑↓ Concrete
Position does not predict behavior; gaps are not predictions
→
Panel B: Resolved Structure / Two Derivable Axes
Derived from element properties
Dependency Layer (Period)
Functional Character (Group)
P6
Is
Ts
Gs
Ds
P5
Sm
Em
Rt
Ct
P4
Lm
Ec
P3
Ss
Wm
P2
Es
Ws
P1
Ce
Fs
Db
Ex
Position predicts behavior; gaps predict undiscovered elements
Left panel (A): The failed cognitive distance axis arranged elements by an assigned judgment of sophistication. Anomalies emerged during stress-testing that could not be resolved by principle: elements like Sm, Em, and Rt lacked determinate placement without designer intervention. Right panel (B): The resolved two-axis structure. Period is determined by dependency depth (what must exist before this element can function). Group is determined by functional character (what the element fundamentally does). Both axes are derived from properties of the elements themselves.