Graphs
The founding obsession, and the one link-out entry that owns something its sibling site does not: the personal history. Where graphs actually entered the thinking is an open question, and it is asked in public.
Block 1 The anchor
The first encounter — likely the O2 Platform's code-flow work
No canonical URL. Not every anchor has one address — a book, a practice or a personal era does not — and this site links what is linkable rather than inventing a canonical home for something that has none. The wider library below carries what can be linked.
Unconfirmed. Unlike every other entry, this anchor is a personal event rather than a published work, and the pack could not establish which one. Asked as Q5 in the briefing queue.
Block 2 In his own words
No first-person statement about this influence exists in the corpus yet. What follows is the site's reading of the evidence, not Dinis Cruz's words — and it stays labelled as such until his briefing document arrives.
This is the influence with the largest corpus footprint and the least documented origin, which is a strange combination and worth stating rather than smoothing over. Graphs are everywhere in the estate — the substrate, the ontology work, the memory model, an entire sibling site — and nothing in the corpus records the moment they stopped being a data structure and became the way of seeing.
What the entry can say is that the interest predates the current work by a long way, and that the shape of it is consistent: not graphs as a storage choice, but graphs as the claim that meaning is relational. The Semantic Web entry is the same claim argued with someone; Luhmann is the same claim arrived at on paper index cards in the 1960s.
Block 3 The principle
Structure is edges. What a thing is matters less than what it connects to, and a model that records connection can answer questions its designer did not anticipate.
Block 4 The trace table
The trace of this influence is an entire site, and a much larger one than this entry could hold. What this entry owns and the sibling does not carry is the personal history: where the interest came from, and when. That part is an open question rather than a claim.
↗ graphs.sgit.aiBlock 6 The checklist
What to ask of new work in this influence's light. The checklist is the influence made operational — the part an agent can run without having consumed the anchor work.
- Is the thing being modelled a set of records, or a set of relationships between records?
- Can the model answer a question nobody thought of when it was built?
- Is the edge typed and addressable, or is it a foreign key with no meaning of its own?
- If this were drawn, would the drawing show structure — or just show the same list in a circle?
The corpus evidence
What the mining run found, by path. These are the files that put this entry in its tier — the claim on this page is checkable against them, which is the whole point of the format.
| Path in the corpus | What it carries |
|---|---|
(corpus-wide) | too pervasive to count usefully — the mining run found graph thinking in the substrate, the concept documents, the guides and the role definitions |
graphs.sgit.ai (sibling site) | the grammar, the depth model and the book — the material this entry deliberately does not repeat |
Paths are as recorded by the mining run behind the commissioning pack (v0.33.62, 25 August 2026). This repository holds the website, not the corpus, so they are cited rather than resolved — R2 in the comms queue.
Where this sits
- Sibling site: graphs.sgit.ai — the grammar, the depth model, the book, and the whole technical treatment