Governing question / Has the system become more useful and more recognisable?
V1 / V2 / V3
V3 / Decision Field
A connected decision model whose identity survives without name or accent colour.
- Worth retaining
- Decision continuity, visible uncertainty, challenge behaviour and cross-medium grammar.
- Material weakness
- Dense working views require usability testing with non-consulting users; the current case is deterministic.
Comparative reading
| Dimension | V1 | V2 | V3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hierarchy | 64 | 78 | 91 |
| Variable density | 38 | 66 | 82 |
| Purposeful containers | 24 | 58 | 79 |
| Distinctiveness | 34 | 55 | 86 |
| Decision clarity | 51 | 68 | 91 |
| Evidence visibility | 46 | 61 | 88 |
| User capability | 58 | 70 | 89 |
| Time to comprehension | 75 sec | 42 sec | 18 sec |
Remaining weaknesses
Learnability
The field grammar is new. First-use comprehension must be tested with users who do not work in consulting or transformation.
Content breadth
The EU case proves one strategic decision. Portfolio, investment and implementation decisions may expose missing grammar.
Interaction depth
V3 demonstrates real state change but does not yet persist models, ingest evidence or support live collaboration.
Typography delivery
Remote font delivery should be self-hosted before production use in sensitive environments.