Find a layout.
Make it yours.

Inputs needed
One clear argument or question.
A bounded promise the following story can fulfil.
Author and date; approved identity assets.

What belongs in each slot
stamp: Content format, not the topic.

eyebrow: Topic or dossier that places the piece.

title: The central argument or question; avoid a vague category label.

dek: Explain what the reader will gain and the angle taken.

byline: Author and publication or proposal date.

art: Preserved decorative brand art; not a graph of success.

mark: Preserved TDW wordmark, not evidence or an endorsement.

What can change
Topic, argument, format label and author/date.
Accent word within the title without changing its meaning.

What must survive
Title and dek promise the same story.
Do not turn proposed outcomes into achieved results.
Artwork has no numeric meaning.

Before this page
The invitation or meeting context should identify the audience and purpose.

What it prepares next
Establish the repair decision problem and evidence for the proposed pilot.

Good uses
Pitch openings
Editorial covers
A new visual story

Poor fits
Detailed evidence
A promise the body cannot support

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative is preparing a pilot proposal; all people, events and data are teaching examples.

Example slot fills
stamp: Pilot proposal

eyebrow: Local repair services

title: Make repair easier to choose than replacement

dek: A parts-ready pilot will test whether clearer estimates and reliable appointments can make local repair a practical first choice.

byline: Ari Vale · fictional project lead · 13 October 2026

art: Retain TDW ridgeline artwork as decoration.

mark: Retain the existing TDW wordmark.

Why the example works
The title gives the direction; the dek qualifies it as a test and tells readers what will be examined.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace with authorised facts, evidence and destinations before delivery; no results or audience effect are claimed.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: a large two-line proposition, short subtitle, engagement/date metadata and decorative rising line.
Current markup and the named slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
Communication job, audience value and adaptation advice are layout-contract interpretations. They are not verified statements of source-author intent.

Not verified
Source-author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and audience effect were not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S01-cover/source.webp
dist/S01-cover/spread.html
dist/S01-cover/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed base source capture, inspected current markup/slots and reviewed the example for reasoning fit; no source-intent or empirical validation claim.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
An intentional section boundary.
A title that accurately represents the pages following it.

What belongs in each slot
number: Position in the authored sequence, not priority or importance.

title: The upcoming section’s subject or governing question.

emoji: Deck-only orientation cue; never the only indication of topic.

What can change
Part number and title.
Bar or scene option when it serves the same orientation job.

What must survive
Section title matches what follows.
Numbering matches the actual sequence.

Before this page
Close the current section with a clear takeaway.

What it prepares next
Answer the named question promptly on the following page.

Good uses
Long-form chapter breaks
A pitch moving from problem to response

Poor fits
Evidence pages
Short sequences where another divider adds friction

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative is preparing a pilot proposal; all people, events and data are teaching examples.

Example slot fills
number: Part II

title: What makes a booking dependable?

emoji: Deck-only tool symbol; decorative.

Why the example works
The divider shifts from diagnosing delay to defining dependable service, without pretending to prove anything itself.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace with authorised facts, evidence and destinations before delivery; no results or audience effect are claimed.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: numbered part label and large section title with one decorative symbol; no evidence panel.
Current markup and the named slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
Communication job, audience value and adaptation advice are layout-contract interpretations. They are not verified statements of source-author intent.

Not verified
Source-author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and audience effect were not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S08-divider/source.webp
dist/S08-divider/spread.html
dist/S08-divider/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed base source capture, inspected current markup/slots and reviewed the example for reasoning fit; no source-intent or empirical validation claim.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A conclusion supported by the preceding story.
One appropriate echo or action.
Approved identity artwork.

What belongs in each slot
last-line: The final conclusion or invitation.

echo: The consequence, next step or contact route that follows it.

art: Decorative brand art, retained without numeric meaning.

mark: Preserved identity/sign-off.

What can change
Conclusion and echo.
Contact route if supplied and authorised.

What must survive
Ending follows from the argument.
One next step rather than several competing asks.

Before this page
Resolve evidence, cost and limitations before arriving here.

What it prepares next
A decision, conversation or explicitly scoped next step.

Good uses
Pitch endings
An editorial final insight
A clear call to discuss

Poor fits
New evidence
An appendix index
A promise broader than the proposal

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative is preparing a pilot proposal; all people, events and data are teaching examples.

Example slot fills
last-line: Make fewer promises we cannot keep.

echo: Approve a small parts-readiness pilot, then review its failures as closely as its successes.

art: Retain the decorative TDW ridgeline.

mark: Retain the TDW wordmark.

Why the example works
The close returns to reliability and asks for a bounded test rather than claiming the service already works.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace with authorised facts, evidence and destinations before delivery; no results or audience effect are claimed.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: a large invitation, a short contact line and identity artwork; current markup adapts the same ending to a takeaway plus echo.
Current markup and the named slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
Communication job, audience value and adaptation advice are layout-contract interpretations. They are not verified statements of source-author intent.

Not verified
Source-author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and audience effect were not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S14-close/source.webp
dist/S14-close/spread.html
dist/S14-close/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed base source capture, inspected current markup/slots and reviewed the example for reasoning fit; no source-intent or empirical validation claim.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Three to five actual major sections.
Accurate ordering and concise titles.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: Name the scope of this contents list.

items: Three to five ordered section names; optional decorative deck symbols do not carry essential information.

word: One organising label for the list.

What can change
Section names and three-to-five count.
The supported contents option when page references matter.

What must survive
Titles correspond to actual sections.
Order matches the real argument.

Before this page
Introduce the proposal’s central promise.

What it prepares next
Begin the first section with the question the agenda names.

Good uses
A substantial pitch
A long visual story
A document needing way-finding

Poor fits
A short self-explanatory sequence
A list of benefits masquerading as an agenda

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: In this proposal

items: 01 Why bookings fail
02 What readiness means
03 How the pilot works
04 What we will measure

word: Contents

Why the example works
The map moves from diagnosis to definition, method and evaluation, so each later section has a clear role.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: four numbered agenda rows under a small label, with one oversized organising word beside them.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S21-agenda/source.webp
dist/S21-agenda/spread.html
dist/S21-agenda/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
One established idea.
A short setup and one legible, appropriate motif.

What belongs in each slot
setup: Connect the preceding evidence to the takeaway.

motif: One mnemonic symbol; it must not carry meaning the words omit.

headline: Name the single idea in fewer than four words.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
One idea, explicitly stated in words.
No invented proof from emotional emphasis.

Before this page
Show how people learn through the program.

What it prepares next
Introduce the capability-building plan or close the talk.

Good uses
A talk hinge or final emphasis.

Poor fits
A standalone evidence claim.
Editorial web content requiring deck-only emoji.

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair-cooperative pitch turns from tools to member skills.

Example slot fills
setup: Tools help. Shared skills last.

motif: One sprouting-seed motif, deck-only.

headline: Build capability.

Why the example works
The seed reinforces the idea of skills developing over time; the preceding section must already have established why capability matters.

Example qualification
Every organization, value and assertion in this example is fictional. Replace it with approved, sourced content before use.

Observed in the inspected material
Retained reference is a short setup above one centered emoji and a huge closing phrase.
Current markup supplies those three slots only.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S51-centered-motif/spread.json
dist/S51-centered-motif/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S51-centered-motif/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A legitimate three-to-five-letter acronym.
An exact expansion and a suitable short setup.

What belongs in each slot
script: A brief greeting or setup; preserve the source’s letter treatment only if appropriate to the delivery context.

acronym: The actual short name, three to five letters.

expansion: One word or phrase per letter group, in exactly the same order.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
Exact letter-to-meaning mapping.
Deck-specific stretched-letter decoration does not become editorial permission.

Before this page
Establish the context in which the named program will be used.

What it prepares next
Explain its promise or operating model.

Good uses
Introducing a new team or program name.

Poor fits
An acronym whose letters do not match its expansion.
A reasoning framework forced into a catchy word.

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative introduces its abbreviated name.

Example slot fills
script: hello

acronym: RHC

expansion: Repair Hub Collective

Why the example works
The expansion makes a new name intelligible immediately; it does not imply that a clever acronym proves the concept.

Example qualification
Every organization, value and assertion in this example is fictional. Replace it with approved, sourced content before use.

Observed in the inspected material
Retained reference centers a short stylized greeting, large acronym and expansion.
Current markup repeats the greeting’s middle letter decoratively.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S54-script-acronym/spread.json
dist/S54-script-acronym/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S54-script-acronym/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A real discussion opportunity.
A facilitator ready to handle questions.

What belongs in each slot
label: Name the discussion moment in one to three words.

emoji-row: Five decorative raised-hand figures, deck-only; the label carries the meaning.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
The invitation is real and accessible in text.
Decorative figures do not imply actual participation.

Before this page
Finish the argument and name the decision or uncertainty worth discussing aloud.

What it prepares next
Answer questions, record unresolved points and restate the next action.

Good uses
A facilitated presentation discussion.

Poor fits
An asynchronous page with no way to respond.
A substitute for a clear closing recommendation.

Fictional worked example
A fictional workshop proposal pauses for member questions.

Example slot fills
label: Questions welcome

emoji-row: Raised hand 1; Raised hand 2; Raised hand 3; Raised hand 4; Raised hand 5

Why the example works
The page yields attention to the audience. It contains no hidden claim or vote.

Example qualification
Every organization, value and assertion in this example is fictional. Replace it with approved, sourced content before use.

Observed in the inspected material
Retained and current layouts show a large discussion label over a row of raised-hand motifs.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S55-q-a/spread.json
dist/S55-q-a/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S55-q-a/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
One honest promise and bounded explanation.
A truthful update label.
Two real destinations with different commitment levels.
A product view labeled as illustrative if it is not the actual product.

What belongs in each slot
pill: A truthful update or category cue; do not invent novelty.

headline: The primary benefit or job the offer performs.

blurb: Explain for whom and how, including a necessary limit.

buttons: Primary start action plus quieter inspect/learn action; each needs a real destination.

screen: Illustrate the relevant product workflow and state; the token-drawn screen is a specimen, not proof of shipped functionality.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
Promise, screen and action describe the same offer.
Demonstration and released capability remain distinct.
No placeholder href or fake field is presented as a completed action.

Before this page
Identify the audience or arrive from a relevant invitation.

What it prepares next
Demonstrate the workflow, show evidence, and explain availability before asking for commitment.

Good uses
Product or pitch opener with an understandable workflow.

Poor fits
An unsupported superlative.
A mock screen passed off as a functioning service.

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair-booking workspace introduces its purpose.

Example slot fills
pill: Pilot · Repair bookings in one place

headline: Know where your repair request stands.

blurb: A fictional booking workspace keeps intake notes, appointments and handover status together for volunteer repair teams.

buttons: View sample / Read method

screen: Illustrative workspace: request list at left, selected lamp intake note at right, appointment and handover state clearly labeled.

Why the example works
The promise is made concrete by the request-to-handover workflow. The two actions distinguish seeing an example from understanding the process.

Example qualification
Every organization, value and assertion in this example is fictional. Replace it with approved, sourced content before use.

Observed in the inspected material
Retained source centers a promise and actions above a large product screen.
Current default shows pill, headline, blurb, buttons and token-drawn screen; image branches are hidden.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S62-centred-hero/spread.json
dist/S62-centred-hero/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S62-centred-hero/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
One promise, one short explanation and one destination.
A relevant, honestly labeled product view.

What belongs in each slot
headline: State the job or benefit plainly.

blurb: Clarify audience or mechanism in one line.

button: Name the next action and connect it to a real destination.

screen: Show the relevant workflow; a mock screen needs an illustrative label.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
Headline, supporting line and visual refer to the same capability.
Prototype status stays explicit.

Before this page
Establish the repair team’s coordination problem.

What it prepares next
Demonstrate one request moving through the workflow.

Good uses
A product or solution opener.

Poor fits
A preview unrelated to the promise.
An action with no real destination.

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair-booking workspace introduces handover coordination.

Example slot fills
headline: Keep every repair handover in view.

blurb: A fictional workspace joins intake notes to appointment and handover status.

button: View sample

screen: Illustrative list of repair requests and the selected request’s dated handover note.

Why the example works
Both text blocks refer to handover continuity; the screen is an example of that workflow, not evidence of adoption.

Example qualification
Every organization, value and assertion in this example is fictional. Replace it with approved, sourced content before use.

Observed in the inspected material
Retained source splits headline and supporting action across the top, with a wide product screen below.
Current default keeps those parts; photo and row replace the visual region.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S63-split-header-hero/spread.json
dist/S63-split-header-hero/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S63-split-header-hero/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A supported promise.
Five or six authorized marks with one explicit relationship definition.
An illustration and device specimen consistent with the offer.

What belongs in each slot
headline: Name the offer without overstating what partner marks establish.

logos: Five or six authorized marks and an explicit relation such as pilot locations; no implied endorsement.

illustration: Show use context; distinguish generative illustration from evidence.

device: A small decorative product specimen; essential claims must also be in accessible text.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
Every mark’s relationship is stated and true.
Proposed, current and past relationships remain distinct.
Decorative device content cannot carry the only essential fact.

Before this page
Explain the service and the status of the relationships.

What it prepares next
Show a confirmed pilot schedule or partnership terms.

Good uses
An accurately qualified partner or host introduction.

Poor fits
Client-logo proof without authorization.
A decorative logo row treated as adoption evidence.

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair service illustrates proposed neighborhood hosts.

Example slot fills
headline: Repair support, hosted close to home.

logos: River Library · proposed host
Market Hall · proposed host
East School · proposed host
Cedar Club · proposed host
Canal Center · proposed host
Hill Rooms · proposed host

illustration: Illustrative neighborhood hall before a repair session.

device: Pilot calendar specimen

Why the example works
The marks identify proposed venues, not customers or endorsers. The explicit relationship does the semantic work that logos alone cannot.

Example qualification
All named organizations are fictional proposed hosts. None represents endorsement, a confirmed agreement or an actual user.

Observed in the inspected material
Retained source places a centered promise above logos and a wide scene with a device.
Current device is aria-hidden, so its content must remain nonessential.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S64-logo-strip-hero/spread.json
dist/S64-logo-strip-hero/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S64-logo-strip-hero/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
One bounded promise.
Two meaningful destinations.
One illustrative object, a representative sample ask and five or six qualified marks.

What belongs in each slot
headline: Name the reader job.

blurb: Explain the scope in plain words.

buttons: Primary action and a lower-commitment alternative; key hints must correspond to real behavior.

illustration: One sculptural cutout as a mnemonic, not documentary proof.

prompt-card: An example ask; the current card is decorative and aria-hidden, so essential instructions belong in visible accessible text.

logos: Five or six authorized marks with explicit relationship status.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
Example ask fits the actual offer.
Decorative object never substitutes for capability evidence.
Prototype and partner status remain explicit.

Before this page
Identify the intake problem and clarify whether this is a concept or working guide.

What it prepares next
Show a complete sample answer, including limits and sources.

Good uses
A concept opener with a representative first task.

Poor fits
A decorative prompt mistaken for a functioning input.
Logos treated as customer proof.

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair intake guide introduces a concrete reader question.

Example slot fills
headline: Start with the repair question.

blurb: A fictional guide helps volunteers find the right intake procedure before a session.

buttons: Read sample / See coverage

illustration: A single sculptural lamp assembled from labeled, generic tool forms; clearly illustrative.

prompt-card: How should I record an intermittent lamp fault?

logos: River Library · proposed host
Market Hall · proposed host
East School · proposed host
Cedar Club · proposed host
Canal Center · proposed host
Hill Rooms · proposed host

Why the example works
The sample ask connects the abstract offer to a real reader task. The object and marks cannot certify answer quality or a live assistant.

Example qualification
Every organization, value and assertion in this example is fictional. Replace it with approved, sourced content before use.

Observed in the inspected material
Retained source shows left promise/actions, right object and floating ask, with a bottom logo row.
Current prompt-card is aria-hidden and provides no working input.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S65-object-hero/spread.json
dist/S65-object-hero/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S65-object-hero/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A bounded promise and real destination.
Nine short topic labels that genuinely fit the offer.

What belongs in each slot
headline: State the main reader job.

blurb: Define coverage and any essential limit in accessible text.

button: A real next action.

chips: Nine topic cues; their scattered positions and blur do not encode ranking, availability or confidence.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
Nine labels stay within actual coverage.
Essential scope is in accessible text; current chips are aria-hidden.
Position and blur are decorative, not semantic encodings.

Before this page
Identify the volunteer’s need and the guide’s limits.

What it prepares next
Open a guide that makes the topics and exclusions explicit.

Good uses
A concise coverage opener.

Poor fits
Essential navigation hidden in decorative chips.
A ranked comparison of capabilities.

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair preparation guide introduces its coverage.

Example slot fills
headline: Prepare a safer repair session.

blurb: A fictional volunteer guide covers intake, supervision and referrals; it does not replace specialist safety training.

button: Read guide

chips: Intake
Tools
Supervision
Diagnosis
Records
Referral
Parts
Handover
Follow-up

Why the example works
The chips illustrate the breadth stated in the blurb. They do not imply each topic is a working feature or clickable category.

Example qualification
Every organization, value and assertion in this example is fictional. Replace it with approved, sourced content before use.

Observed in the inspected material
Retained source has centered promise/action and loose topic chips.
Current .cloud is aria-hidden with nine labels; the option changes order only.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S66-orbit-hero/spread.json
dist/S66-orbit-hero/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S66-orbit-hero/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A bounded subject and audience.
Twelve representative questions grounded in actual coverage.
A real destination and explicit distinction between mock-up and working interaction.

What belongs in each slot
headline: Name the subject and promised help without claiming unlimited capability.

blurb: Specify the coverage boundary and what the reader will get.

button: Name the available first step; wire its destination in the destination project.

suggestions: Twelve short parallel questions across the promised scope, not twelve benefits.

prompt: A short illustrative invitation matching those questions; this template is a static visual, not an input.

What can change
Subject, language, question examples and action label.
Brand tokens while retaining the left promise/right example relationship.

What must survive
Questions belong to one honest scope.
Examples do not imply facts or working backend functionality.
Essential instructions remain in accessible prose; the current prompt illustration is aria-hidden.

Before this page
On a landing page, establish the audience and scope in the hero itself; in a pitch, first explain the unmet information need.

What it prepares next
Show one actual answer or guide and explain its evidence and limits.

Good uses
A question-led knowledge service introduction.
A pitch explaining an intended experience, explicitly labelled concept.

Poor fits
Results or proof of answer quality.
An unrestricted Ask anything promise for a narrowly documented service.

Fictional worked example
A fictional community repair guide helps first-time volunteers diagnose bicycle problems. Its launch includes written guides, not a question-answering engine.

Example slot fills
headline: Understand the bicycle repairs you can tackle.

blurb: Short guides help new volunteers inspect common faults and recognise when a mechanic is needed.

button: Browse guides

suggestions: Why does the chain slip?
How do I check tyre wear?
What causes squeaking brakes?
When should a wheel be replaced?
How tight should a chain be?
Which tools suit this repair?
Can I patch this inner tube?
Why is the handlebar wobbling?
How do I clean the gears?
When should I stop riding?
Which checks come before a repair?
When do I need a mechanic?

prompt: Choose a question

Why the example works
The questions translate a broad repair-guide promise into recognisable tasks. Browse guides leads to the documented material; the mock-up never implies an answer engine.

Example qualification
Illustrative fictional copy only. Real safety guidance would require expert review; no repair advice or working interaction is supplied here.

Observed in the inspected material
The retained Tailark screenshot places a promise/action left, sample requests right and a pill over their middle; surrounding samples fade at the edges.
Current HTML has twelve list items, a decorative aria-hidden prompt and a Start reading link pointing to #. It does not implement search.
The local repair removes opaque lead/list backplates introduced by contrast CSS. The complete readable in-flow question list remains.

Interpretation for reuse
The composition can orient by examples of user intent. This is a layout-based reuse interpretation, not a verified statement of source author intent.

Not verified
The source author's intended persuasion and user outcomes are not independently established.
No proposal-archive corpus or user testing was used.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S67-prompt-hero/source.webp
S67-prompt-hero/spread.html
S67-prompt-hero/spread.json
https://oss.tailark.com/view/veil-hero-section-3?theme=light

Review basis
reviewed: Loom inspected source capture, actual HTML/CSS, live defect and local rendering; semantic adaptation reviewed as a layout interpretation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A real audience and authorized writer.
A reason for writing, one governing commitment and three concrete implications.
A relevant illustrative image.

What belongs in each slot
illustration: Contextual image beside the letter, with provenance.

salutation: Address the intended audience accurately.

letter: Four to six short paragraphs, one emphasized commitment and a three-item list; keep reasons, promise and ask connected.

signoff: The accountable, authorized author.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
The writer owns the promise.
The ask follows the stated reason for writing.
Warmth does not conceal limitations.

Before this page
Establish the relationship or explain why the reader is receiving the proposal.

What it prepares next
Present the pilot outline, evidence and practical terms.

Good uses
An opening note from a named team.
An editorial or proposal preface.

Poor fits
A personal endorsement written without authority.
A long argument that needs evidence comparison.

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair pilot team writes to neighborhood members.

Example slot fills
illustration: Illustrative workbench with a notebook and a lamp awaiting inspection.

salutation: Dear neighborhood members,

letter: We are writing because a broken appliance can leave people unsure where to begin. Our proposed workshop starts with that uncertainty.

We will help people find a responsible next step. Repair is one possible outcome; referral is another.

The pilot has three commitments: explain what we can assess; record what remains uncertain; refer work beyond our skills.

We will begin with three staffed sessions at one branch. The schedule and exclusions will be shared before anyone books.

Please read the pilot outline and tell us which part is unclear. Your questions will help us improve the explanation before launch.

signoff: The pilot team

Why the example works
The letter moves from a recognizable reader problem to a bounded commitment, practical obligations and a proportionate response.

Example qualification
Every organization, value and assertion in this example is fictional. Replace it with approved, sourced content before use.

Observed in the inspected material
Current markup uses a salutation, short paragraphs, one bold line, three-item list and sign-off beside a tall image.
Viewed source capture is blurred; only arrangement is observable.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S68-cover-letter/spread.json
dist/S68-cover-letter/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S68-cover-letter/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Names the thing the reader would join.
Three labelled information requests, collecting only what the real workflow needs; current implementation is illustrative divs.
A truthful action label; the current element is not an operable submit button.
Three specific reasons to join, each with a short explanatory line.

What belongs in each slot
form-title: Names the thing the reader would join.

form: Three labelled information requests, collecting only what the real workflow needs; current implementation is illustrative divs.

button: A truthful action label; the current element is not an operable submit button.

benefits: Three specific reasons to join, each with a short explanatory line.

What can change
Replace the fictional subject and its supported content while retaining the roles and relationship described here.

What must survive
Current fields and action are static illustrations, not inputs or submit controls.
Any implemented form needs truthful purpose, handling and outcome text.
Benefits cannot promise unimplemented behaviour.

Before this page
Explain the workshop or service.

What it prepares next
Use a real consent and submission workflow only after implementing it separately.

Good uses
A sign-up concept in a pitch.
A UI arrangement reference.

Poor fits
A production registration flow using this static markup unchanged.
Sensitive information collection without a real handling policy.

Fictional worked example
Fictional Cedar sketches a workshop mailing-list invitation; no personal data is collected by this spread.

Example slot fills
form-title: Join the workshop list

form: Name | Email | Preferred session — fictional non-submitting example

button: Illustrative sign-up

benefits: Preparation | Receive the safety checklist before attending.
Places | Hear when a new session opens.
Control | Choose whether to receive further notices.

Why the example works
The reasons correspond to the proposed ask; the form must not appear to have submitted anything when it has no backend.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace invented details with authorised content and keep any source, scope, status or uncertainty that affects interpretation.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: three fields and a sign-up action face three reasons to join.
Current HTML explicitly labels the form illustration-only and uses divs for fields and action.

Interpretation for reuse
An invitation places the requested information beside the reasons someone might choose to provide it. This is an interpretation of the inspected composition, not a verified claim of author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, historical claims, persuasion and archive-wide frequency have not been independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S95-signup-panel/source.webp
02_product/spreads-semantics-2026-10-13/dist/S95-signup-panel/spread.html
02_product/spreads-semantics-2026-10-13/dist/S95-signup-panel/spread.json
https://webslides.tv/demos/components#slide=91

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed the retained base source capture and inspected current HTML and matching slots; reviewed the fictional adaptation at layout-contract level.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
The section’s governing theme or promise.
Explains what holds the eight views together.
Eight cleared images or labelled illustrations; four above and four below, all relevant to the same theme.

What belongs in each slot
headline: The section’s governing theme or promise.

subtitle: Explains what holds the eight views together.

illustration: Eight cleared images or labelled illustrations; four above and four below, all relevant to the same theme.

What can change
Replace the fictional subject and its supported content while retaining the roles and relationship described here.

What must survive
Maintain a single theme across all eight images.
Distinguish images of real work from illustrative scenes.
Do not assign sequence or weighting unless explicitly stated.

Before this page
Give the audience a reason to enter this section.

What it prepares next
Explain the selected facets and their relationship in detail.

Good uses
A gallery cover or chapter opener.

Poor fits
A detailed case-results page.
An arbitrary stock-image collage.

Fictional worked example
Fictional Cedar introduces a chapter about the conditions that make repair workshops repeatable.

Example slot fills
headline: Repair starts long before the first screwdriver

subtitle: The people, preparation and spaces behind Cedar’s fictional workshop.

illustration: Fictional illustration: venue access inspection.
Fictional illustration: tools checked before opening.
Fictional illustration: volunteers rehearsing intake.
Fictional illustration: participants reading the safety guide.
Fictional illustration: labelled parts drawers.
Fictional illustration: experienced repairer advising a volunteer.
Fictional illustration: issue notes reviewed after the session.
Fictional illustration: room reset for the next workshop.

Why the example works
Each image is a different facet of preparation and learning. The headline gives the collection its argument; the montage does not prove outcomes.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace invented details with authorised content and keep any source, scope, status or uncertainty that affects interpretation.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: four picture placeholders above and four below a central headline/subtitle.
Current HTML retains eight image slots in two strips.

Interpretation for reuse
A visual collection frames a single theme that introduces the section to follow. This is an interpretation of the inspected composition, not a verified claim of author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, historical claims, persuasion and archive-wide frequency have not been independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S98-picture-strips/source.webp
02_product/spreads-semantics-2026-10-13/dist/S98-picture-strips/spread.html
02_product/spreads-semantics-2026-10-13/dist/S98-picture-strips/spread.json

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed the retained base source capture and inspected current HTML and matching slots; reviewed the fictional adaptation at layout-contract level.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
One supportable claim or clearly labelled hypothesis.
A concise reason or qualification.
A relevant cleared illustration.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: Indicate stance, finding or proposal.

claim: One bounded proposition, not a stack of benefits.

support: Reason, mechanism or limitation that makes the claim intelligible.

photo: A relevant illustration of the subject; the legacy name does not make the image photographic evidence.

What can change
Claim and illustration subject.
The selected source-supported composition option.

What must survive
Image, support and claim concern the same point.
Necessary qualification remains visible.
Visual prominence does not establish truth.

Before this page
Establish the booking uncertainty with evidence or label it as an assumption.

What it prepares next
Explain the trial design, the service detail or the evidence needed.

Good uses
A strategic point of view
One central finding with support
A concept introduction

Poor fits
A multi-factor comparison
A claim requiring extensive caveats
Visual proof of a historical event using generated imagery

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative is preparing a pilot proposal; all people, events and data are teaching examples.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: Pilot hypothesis

claim: Certainty may matter more than speed.

support: We propose confirming parts availability before offering selected repair appointments, then comparing missed promises with the current booking process.

photo: Labelled illustration of a repairer checking a parts tray before confirming a booking.

Why the example works
The support names the mechanism and test; the image makes the process imaginable but does not verify the hypothesis.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace with authorised facts, evidence and destinations before delivery; no results or audience effect are claimed.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: point-of-view label, large claim, a brief supporting paragraph and a large prescribed supporting image region.
Current markup and the named slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
Communication job, audience value and adaptation advice are layout-contract interpretations. They are not verified statements of source-author intent.

Not verified
Source-author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and audience effect were not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S04-statement/source.webp
dist/S04-statement/spread.html
dist/S04-statement/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed base source capture, inspected current markup/slots and reviewed the example for reasoning fit; no source-intent or empirical validation claim.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A sentence whose meaning genuinely turns on one word.
Prior context that makes the turn intelligible.
A concise qualification or implication.

What belongs in each slot
setup: The grammatical lead-in to the final word.

word: One decisive word that completes or reframes the setup.

aside: Clarify why the turn matters or what question follows.

emoji: Optional deck-only pictorial emphasis; remove for editorial page use without losing meaning.

What can change
Setup, single word and supporting aside.
Decorative deck symbol only.

What must survive
Setup plus final word forms a coherent utterance.
The aside preserves the point rather than introducing another.

Before this page
Explain why missed appointments damage confidence.

What it prepares next
Specify the readiness criteria behind a credible booking.

Good uses
A transition after diagnosis
A succinct reframe
An emphatic contrast

Poor fits
A self-contained explanation
A nuanced finding that depends on a paragraph of caveats

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative is preparing a pilot proposal; all people, events and data are teaching examples.

Example slot fills
setup: An appointment is a

word: promise.

aside: Only offer the slot once the parts are ready.

emoji: Deck-only calendar symbol; decorative, not required to understand the claim.

Why the example works
Promise reframes an appointment as an operational commitment, preparing a discussion of what must be ready.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace with authorised facts, evidence and destinations before delivery; no results or audience effect are claimed.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: a short setup leads to a single oversized word, with a small aside in the opposite corner.
Current markup and the named slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
Communication job, audience value and adaptation advice are layout-contract interpretations. They are not verified statements of source-author intent.

Not verified
Source-author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and audience effect were not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S05-punchline/source.webp
dist/S05-punchline/spread.html
dist/S05-punchline/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed base source capture, inspected current markup/slots and reviewed the example for reasoning fit; no source-intent or empirical validation claim.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Two short statements with an explicit contrast, qualification or consequence.
Prior support if either statement makes a factual claim.

What belongs in each slot
beat-1: The setup: a familiar observation or proposition.

beat-2: The payoff: what that observation really means or fails to settle.

emoji-1: Deck-only decoration reinforcing the setup.

emoji-2: Deck-only decoration reinforcing the payoff.

What can change
Two lines and their rhetorical relationship.
Deck-only symbols.

What must survive
The second line changes or completes the first.
No essential explanation is assigned only to decoration.

Before this page
Establish what the team currently counts as success.

What it prepares next
Show the readiness problem and choose a better measure.

Good uses
A qualification before evidence
A memorable transition
A wider implication of a finding

Poor fits
Two unrelated slogans
A three-stage process

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative is preparing a pilot proposal; all people, events and data are teaching examples.

Example slot fills
beat-1: A full booking calendar can look like success.

beat-2: Until customers arrive for repairs that cannot begin.

emoji-1: Deck-only calendar symbol.

emoji-2: Deck-only parts-box symbol.

Why the example works
The payoff qualifies the apparent success metric by introducing readiness; neither line alone makes the full argument.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace with authorised facts, evidence and destinations before delivery; no results or audience effect are claimed.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: two statements occupy opposing corners, with decorative symbols; the second qualifies the apparent celebration in the first.
Current markup and the named slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
Communication job, audience value and adaptation advice are layout-contract interpretations. They are not verified statements of source-author intent.

Not verified
Source-author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and audience effect were not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S07-two-beat/source.webp
dist/S07-two-beat/spread.html
dist/S07-two-beat/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed base source capture, inspected current markup/slots and reviewed the example for reasoning fit; no source-intent or empirical validation claim.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A verified quotation or a clearly labelled fictional teaching example.
Speaker, role, source/date and context needed to prevent distortion.
A reason this testimony bears on the argument.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: Identify the context or kind of testimony.

quote: Exact complete wording of the selected line; do not rewrite as a better endorsement.

highlight: An exact substring carrying the point, never a substitute claim.

attribution: Speaker and relevant role plus source/date where needed; distinguish a customer, employee or author.

What can change
Which properly sourced line is selected.
The highlighted phrase, if emphasis does not distort the speaker’s meaning.

What must survive
Quote and attribution remain paired.
Necessary caveats stay with the statement.
Anecdotal testimony does not become a measured or representative finding.

Before this page
Establish the repair-delay problem and the context in which this person was asked.

What it prepares next
Compare the perspective with broader evidence or explain the test it motivates.

Good uses
A sourced customer perspective
A memorable expert qualification
A first-person illustration of an established issue

Poor fits
Unattributed marketing claims
Invented endorsements presented as real
A claim requiring population-level measurement

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair pilot includes an explicitly invented resident interview for teaching purposes.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: Fictional resident

quote: Knowing the part was ready mattered more than getting the earliest appointment.

highlight: the part was ready

attribution: Mira Vale · fictional resident · invented interview

Why the example works
The line illustrates why appointment certainty could matter; it does not establish how common that preference is.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only; proposed actions and testimony are not measured outcomes or real endorsements.

Observed in the inspected material
The source capture isolates one attributed quotation with a highlighted phrase.
The default HTML retains quotation, embedded highlight and attribution; the portrait is hidden unless its option is selected.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and adaptation rules below are an interpretation of the viewed composition and current implementation, not a statement from the source author.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source-deck argument, factual sample claims and audience effects have not been independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S10-pull-quote/source.webp
dist/S10-pull-quote/spread.html
dist/S10-pull-quote/spread.json

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
One short central line.
A scene that makes that line understandable.
Clear distinction between illustration and factual record.

What belongs in each slot
illustration: The full-field visual context; preserve room for the text and label generated scenes.

eyebrow: The theme or chapter cue.

headline: A short proposition that relates meaningfully to the scene.

What can change
Scene and thematic line.
Supported card or sequential-story option when the task changes.

What must survive
Text and image refer to the same idea.
Image status is explicit.
The next page earns any claim.

Before this page
Explain why the visible appointment is only part of service reliability.

What it prepares next
Show the readiness checks and who owns them.

Good uses
A visual chapter opening
A concise editorial bridge
An image-led proposition

Poor fits
A complex comparison
A statistical finding
A scene used to imply a real event without evidence

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
illustration: Labelled generated scene of a repair workshop with a prepared parts tray in the foreground.

eyebrow: Before the visit

headline: A dependable repair begins before the doorbell.

Why the example works
The scene makes preparation concrete while the line sets up the unseen work behind a visit.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: one short statement over a prescribed full-bleed image with overlay; no detailed proof region.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S24-full-bleed/source.webp
dist/S24-full-bleed/spread.html
dist/S24-full-bleed/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A contextual full-field scene with no quantitative encoding; label generated work as illustration.
One verified value, with unit or symbol where necessary.
The measure, population and reporting period needed to interpret the value.

What belongs in each slot
illustration: A contextual full-field scene with no quantitative encoding; label generated work as illustration.

figure: One verified value, with unit or symbol where necessary.

caption: The measure, population and reporting period needed to interpret the value.

What can change
Replace the fictional subject and its supported content while retaining the roles and relationship described here.

What must survive
Caption and number form one indivisible claim.
Preserve units, period, scope and a traceable source in the caption or surrounding context.
Rolling digits are an entrance effect, not a growth history.

Before this page
Establish why trained capacity matters.

What it prepares next
Explain how training was assessed or what capacity it enables.

Good uses
A single decisive, sourced quantitative anchor.

Poor fits
Several measures needing comparison.
A percentage without a clear denominator.

Fictional worked example
Fictional Cedar trained 24 distinct volunteers during its June pilot.

Example slot fills
illustration: Labelled fictional illustration of a community repair workshop.

figure: 24

caption: Volunteers trained in Cedar’s fictional June pilot.

Why the example works
The figure is a count of trained volunteers, not sessions, attendance visits or successful repairs.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace invented details with authorised content and keep any source, scope, status or uncertainty that affects interpretation.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: one oversized download count and its reporting-window caption over a placeholder image.
Current base shows a figure/caption over an illustration; noted alone exposes eyebrow and source.

Interpretation for reuse
One carefully scoped quantity anchors the reader’s understanding of the subject. This is an interpretation of the inspected composition, not a verified claim of author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, historical claims, persuasion and archive-wide frequency have not been independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S81-big-number/source.webp
02_product/spreads-semantics-2026-10-13/dist/S81-big-number/spread.html
02_product/spreads-semantics-2026-10-13/dist/S81-big-number/spread.json
https://webslides.tv/demos/components#slide=62

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed the retained base source capture and inspected current HTML and matching slots; reviewed the fictional adaptation at layout-contract level.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A short amount, symbol or other focal item.
What that item means, includes or buys.
The essential scope or condition of the statement.

What belongs in each slot
big: A short amount, symbol or other focal item.

line: What that item means, includes or buys.

note: The essential scope or condition of the statement.

What can change
Replace the fictional subject and its supported content while retaining the roles and relationship described here.

What must survive
Keep focal item, definition and qualification together.
Never invent an actual price, entitlement or availability.

Before this page
Establish the subject and relevant need.

What it prepares next
Explain inclusions, conditions or the next action.

Good uses
A single scoped offer.
A compact symbol-and-definition moment.

Poor fits
Multiple pricing tiers.
A number requiring a long methods explanation.

Fictional worked example
Fictional Cedar illustrates a kit offer for a teaching example.

Example slot fills
big: $20

line: One fictional workshop materials kit

note: Illustrative price; tools and attendance are not included.

Why the example works
The price means little without the kit scope; the note prevents readers inferring that it buys a workshop place.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace invented details with authorised content and keep any source, scope, status or uncertainty that affects interpretation.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: an oversized price is paired with a short service line.
Current default uses amount/line/note; mark swaps in the wordmark; specimen shows a type sample and glyph rows.

Interpretation for reuse
One focal amount or symbol is immediately defined by the adjacent line and qualification. This is an interpretation of the inspected composition, not a verified claim of author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, historical claims, persuasion and archive-wide frequency have not been independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S91-lockup/source.webp
02_product/spreads-semantics-2026-10-13/dist/S91-lockup/spread.html
02_product/spreads-semantics-2026-10-13/dist/S91-lockup/spread.json
https://webslides.tv/demos/components#slide=78

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed the retained base source capture and inspected current HTML and matching slots; reviewed the fictional adaptation at layout-contract level.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Three or four genuinely distinct audiences or parallel cases.
The same descriptive dimensions for every item.
Evidence or an explicit hypothesis behind each need.

What belongs in each slot
head: The pattern that unites the set.

sub: Define the comparison basis and whether these profiles are researched or proposed.

items: Three or four complete profiles: illustrative image, identity, need/tag, short context, footer label and intended shift.

What can change
Three or four items.
Audience or case identities and accompanying illustrations.

What must survive
All cards answer the same questions.
A desired shift is not evidence that it occurred.
Differences must be substantive, not demographic decoration.

Before this page
Define the overall adoption problem and the basis for segmentation.

What it prepares next
Develop a persona, audience-specific story or plan matrix.

Good uses
Audience segmentation
Parallel market situations
Several cases with the same analytical dimensions

Poor fits
Ranked options without criteria
An unordered timeline

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative is preparing a pilot proposal; all people, events and data are teaching examples.

Example slot fills
head: Repair adoption depends on three different kinds of confidence.

sub: These fictional audience hypotheses distinguish convenience, upkeep and accountability; research must test them before campaign planning.

items: Residents | Illustration: household lamp | Need: confidence it is worth trying | Context: A broken item competes with an easy replacement. | Desired shift: Ask for a repair assessment first.
Landlords | Illustration: rental fixtures | Need: dependable upkeep | Context: They need repairs that fit tenant access windows. | Desired shift: Include repairs in planned maintenance.
Employers | Illustration: office equipment | Need: accountable spending | Context: Managers must explain repair costs and downtime. | Desired shift: Compare repair and replacement explicitly.

Why the example works
Each card uses identical semantic roles while differentiating the motivation; the footer states a proposed response rather than an observed result.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace with authorised facts, evidence and destinations before delivery; no results or audience effect are claimed.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: three audience cards pair identity, motivational tag and context with a separate desired-response footer. Current default extends this structure to four illustrative cases.
Current markup and the named slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
Communication job, audience value and adaptation advice are layout-contract interpretations. They are not verified statements of source-author intent.

Not verified
Source-author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and audience effect were not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S03-parallel-four/source.webp
dist/S03-parallel-four/spread.html
dist/S03-parallel-four/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed base source capture, inspected current markup/slots and reviewed the example for reasoning fit; no source-intent or empirical validation claim.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A fair statement of the current frame.
A documented limitation or clearly labelled hypothesis that motivates a change.
A replacement question that responds to that limitation.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: Name the act of reconsidering the frame, not an unrelated topic.

head: State the change of question or approach.

steps: Three linked units: current view; the evidence or lens that challenges it; the resulting view. Give each a short title, sentence and illustrative icon.

What can change
Subject, vocabulary and icons.
Use an observed change or a proposed reframing, clearly labelled.

What must survive
Three ordered roles and an explicit reason for the transition.
The old view must be represented fairly.
A proposed benefit stays a hypothesis until supported.

Before this page
Show the delay diagnosis and how jobs were classified.

What it prepares next
Explain a parts-readiness trial and how its effect would be measured.

Good uses
Strategy pivots
Reframing a problem after diagnosis
Explaining a change of operating principle

Poor fits
A chronology with no changed interpretation
Unrelated before and after claims
A benefit claim without the mechanism

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative notices that most late jobs wait for parts rather than technicians.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: Change the question

head: Parts readiness should govern repair scheduling.

steps: Current question: How can we fit more repairs into each day?
Turning point: In our fictional job review, missing parts caused most delays.
Better question: Which parts must be ready before we promise a slot?

Why the example works
The obstacle changes the optimisation target from technician capacity to parts readiness; the middle box earns the new question.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only; proposed actions and testimony are not measured outcomes or real endorsements.

Observed in the inspected material
The source capture shows three arrow-linked boxes labelled before, shift and after, with the middle box highlighted.
The current HTML uses the same three-part flow for old question, lens and new question.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and adaptation rules below are an interpretation of the viewed composition and current implementation, not a statement from the source author.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source-deck argument, factual sample claims and audience effects have not been independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S06-hinge/source.webp
dist/S06-hinge/spread.html
dist/S06-hinge/spread.json

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Three cases with a shared question.
A short explanation and two concise descriptors per case.
Relevant labelled illustrations and any supporting evidence.

What belongs in each slot
head: State the shared finding or question.

items: Three parallel case units: image, case-specific heading, explanation and two comparable tags.

What can change
Case subject and illustrations.
Supported options can change count or replace images with icons/text.

What must survive
Comparable analytical roles across every column.
Context remains attached to its case.
One highlighted heading does not by itself mean a better case.

Before this page
Define the delay categories and their evidence base.

What it prepares next
Map a suitable response to each cause, or examine one case in depth.

Good uses
Comparable cases
Audience or market differences
Three supporting mechanisms

Poor fits
A ranking with no shared criteria
Unrelated anecdotes

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative is preparing a pilot proposal; all people, events and data are teaching examples.

Example slot fills
head: Three repair delays need different responses.

items: Missing parts | Illustration: empty parts tray | A job cannot start until the correct component arrives. | Tags: Parts / Availability
Unclear fault | Illustration: inspection bench | A technician must diagnose the fault before estimating the work. | Tags: Diagnosis / Uncertainty
Missed access | Illustration: closed doorway | The repairer and resident need an agreed access window. | Tags: Access / Scheduling

Why the example works
The same service outcome is blocked by three different mechanisms; the comparison prepares differentiated remedies.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace with authorised facts, evidence and destinations before delivery; no results or audience effect are claimed.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: three image-and-text columns under one shared finding, each with paired contextual chips. Current default uses historical case examples instead.
Current markup and the named slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
Communication job, audience value and adaptation advice are layout-contract interpretations. They are not verified statements of source-author intent.

Not verified
Source-author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and audience effect were not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S11-three-detail/source.webp
dist/S11-three-detail/spread.html
dist/S11-three-detail/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed base source capture, inspected current markup/slots and reviewed the example for reasoning fit; no source-intent or empirical validation claim.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Three short steps in the current markup.
A reason for their order.
A defined outcome and necessary conditions.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: Name the method or capability being explained.

head: State what the method is for.

points: Three numbered units: action title, concise explanation and optional deck symbol; do not imply time durations with the numbers.

What can change
Step names and explanations.
Decorative symbols or stagger timing without changing order.

What must survive
The order is justified.
All steps remain visible in complete and reduced-motion views.

Before this page
Explain why confirming appointments too early causes difficulty.

What it prepares next
Assign owners and measurement to the proposed steps.

Good uses
A short process
An ordered explanation
A method summary

Poor fits
A detailed branching workflow
Independent principles that do not need ordering

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair cooperative is preparing a pilot proposal; all people, events and data are teaching examples.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: A dependable booking

head: Check readiness before promising a repair.

points: 01 Diagnose: Ask what failed and establish whether an inspection is needed.
02 Prepare: Confirm the required part and technician are available.
03 Promise: Offer an appointment only after those checks are complete.

Why the example works
Diagnosis determines preparation; preparation earns the promise. The order is part of the method.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example. Replace with authorised facts, evidence and destinations before delivery; no results or audience effect are claimed.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: three numbered approach steps, each with a title and one supporting sentence.
Current markup and the named slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
Communication job, audience value and adaptation advice are layout-contract interpretations. They are not verified statements of source-author intent.

Not verified
Source-author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and audience effect were not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S12-numbered/source.webp
dist/S12-numbered/spread.html
dist/S12-numbered/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed base source capture, inspected current markup/slots and reviewed the example for reasoning fit; no source-intent or empirical validation claim.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
One agreed objective and strategic choice.
Three distinct audiences with different information needs.
One lead story and two continuing angles for each audience.
Two activities that genuinely serve all three audiences.

What belongs in each slot
title: Name the plan or decision scope.

banner: Express the common platform all audience stories support.

row-label: Keep the matrix categories explicit: strategy, audience, lead story, ongoing stories and two shared programmes. Only the first label is annotated; edit all corresponding labels in markup.

strategy: Describe the chosen way to move the audiences toward the objective.

column-head: Three audience names, used consistently down their columns. Only the first is annotated; map all three.

cell: Map lead stories and two ongoing angles per audience. The annotation marks only the first cell; fill every peer in row/column order.

footer-row: Two shared programmes and their contribution. Only the first is annotated; preserve both full-width rows.

What can change
Audience names and platform.
Story topics and shared programme types, keeping each row comparable.

What must survive
Every story has an audience and supports the shared strategy.
Rows retain one meaning across columns.
Shared rows genuinely span all audiences.
No empty cell is silently interpreted as exclusion.

Before this page
Establish barriers to repair adoption and why these three audiences matter.

What it prepares next
Develop the activity owners, timing, cost and honest measures of trial success.

Good uses
Campaign architecture
Stakeholder communication plans
An overview before workstream detail

Poor fits
An unprioritised task inventory
Independent programmes with incompatible row meanings
A detailed schedule requiring dates and dependencies

Fictional worked example
A fictional municipal repair cooperative needs residents, landlords and employers to try a repair-first service.

Example slot fills
title: Make repair the first choice

banner: Keep useful things working

row-label: Strategy
Audience
Lead story
Ongoing stories
Shared explainers
Shared evidence

strategy: Replace disposal habits with credible examples of convenient local repair.

column-head: Residents
Landlords
Employers

cell: Lead / Residents: Repair a favourite household item
Lead / Landlords: Keep rental fixtures in service
Lead / Employers: Extend office equipment life
Ongoing / Residents: What can be repaired; Booking without guesswork
Ongoing / Landlords: Tenant handover checks; Parts worth stocking
Ongoing / Employers: Repair approval guide; Equipment care routines

footer-row: Monthly explainers clarify repair limits, warranties and safe disposal when repair is unsuitable.
An openly labelled pilot log records attempted repairs, failures and follow-up checks.

Why the example works
The same adoption strategy is translated into each audience’s practical situation; the shared explainers and log support every column.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only; proposed actions and testimony are not measured outcomes or real endorsements.

Observed in the inspected material
The source capture has a campaign platform spanning three audience columns, then strategy, hero stories, ongoing angles and two always-on rows.
Current markup retains that hierarchy; repeated row labels, audience headings, cells and second footer are only partly annotated.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and adaptation rules below are an interpretation of the viewed composition and current implementation, not a statement from the source author.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source-deck argument, factual sample claims and audience effects have not been independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S25-plan-on-a-page/source.webp
dist/S25-plan-on-a-page/spread.html
dist/S25-plan-on-a-page/spread.json

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A shared theme with two genuinely different story questions.
Evidence or a reporting plan for each premise.
Appropriate intended formats/outlets without implying acceptance.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: Name the pair’s role in the plan.

title: The shared question or theme.

stories: Two complete pitches: headline, premise, reporting angle and proposed destination; target outlets are intentions, not booked placements.

What can change
Story topics, angles and proposed formats.
Order without implying priority unless explained.

What must survive
Premise, angle and target remain distinct.
Each card contributes something different.
Proposed publication is not reported as secured.

Before this page
Establish the theme, audience need and evidence available.

What it prepares next
Choose an angle and commission its reporting or show the wider content plan.

Good uses
Editorial planning
Two complementary campaign angles
A choice of concrete stories

Poor fits
Two identical messages with different headlines
A measured results comparison

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: Reporting ideas

title: What makes local repair dependable?

stories: 01 The appointment before the appointment | Premise: Parts checks may shape whether a repair can begin. | Angle: Follow one proposed booking from enquiry to readiness decision. | Runs in: fictional service explainer, proposed.
02 When repair is the wrong answer | Premise: Some faults make replacement safer or more practical. | Angle: Explain the decision criteria using cleared examples. | Runs in: fictional consumer guide, proposed.

Why the example works
The first story explains readiness; the second sets honest limits. Together they develop trust through operational detail, not repeated promotional claims.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: two equal cards each contain a headline, premise, explicit angle and target-publication line.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S31-two-story/source.webp
dist/S31-two-story/spread.html
dist/S31-two-story/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
One defined audience and its information need.
Two distinct story angles with support or a reporting plan.
Appropriate proposed destinations.

What belongs in each slot
segment: The single audience these stories serve.

title: The programme or type of engagement.

illustration: Illustrate the audience situation without pretending it is source evidence.

stories: Two pitches: headline, premise, angle and proposed destination. Different card colours distinguish entries; they do not establish a recommendation.

What can change
Audience and supporting scene.
Story angles that preserve the shared audience focus.

What must survive
One audience anchors both stories.
Angles and destinations respond to its needs.
Proposed targets remain proposals.

Before this page
Establish the audience’s needs and the common strategic choice.

What it prepares next
Translate selected angles into a schedule, reporting brief or sample story.

Good uses
An audience-specific content programme
Two continuing engagement ideas

Poor fits
Stories for unrelated audiences
A headline inventory without premises

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
segment: Landlords

title: Ongoing stories

illustration: Labelled fictional illustration of a landlord and tenant arranging maintenance access.

stories: A slot the tenant can trust | Premise: Repeated visits disrupt access arrangements. | Angle: Explain the checks that should precede a confirmed visit. | Runs in: proposed landlord bulletin.
Repair decisions worth documenting | Premise: A decision to replace needs an understandable reason. | Angle: Show a clear record of fault, options and safety limits. | Runs in: proposed maintenance guide.

Why the example works
Both stories address the same audience but different uncertainties: appointment reliability and defensible replacement decisions.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: a named audience and supporting image occupy a rail beside two full-height story cards with target lines.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S32-story-engagement/source.webp
dist/S32-story-engagement/spread.html
dist/S32-story-engagement/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Four to six defined stages.
A meaningful order and a named actor or system.
Evidence or a disclosed hypothesis about transitions and loops.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: What kind of journey or model this is.

head: The model’s governing idea.

stages: Four to six stage-name and short-state pairs; use the same actor and level of abstraction throughout.

What can change
Four-to-six stages.
The model’s domain, if transitions are meaningful.

What must survive
One actor/system and consistent stage granularity.
Order is defined, not inferred merely from position.
Loops or exceptions are acknowledged when material.

Before this page
Define the audience and the problem the journey helps solve.

What it prepares next
Map barriers, content, owners or measures to each stage.

Good uses
Customer journeys
A capability-building model
A simple process overview

Poor fits
A measured funnel without counts
A guaranteed linear path where loops dominate

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: Proposed resident journey

head: Confidence grows through clear decisions.

stages: Notice | Something stops working
Consider | Is repair worthwhile?
Assess | What is wrong?
Book | Everything is ready
Repair | Work is completed
Review | Did it last?

Why the example works
The stages describe changing questions for one resident, making room to assign service support at each point.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: six customer-journey stages each pair a name with a short first-person state; current default adapts the structure to capability stages.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S34-journey/source.webp
dist/S34-journey/spread.html
dist/S34-journey/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Four to six complementary evaluation dimensions, or explicitly ordered milestones for the alternate use.
State which relationship is intended.
For measures: definition, denominator, period and method available in supporting detail. For milestones: dates/order and transition conditions.

What belongs in each slot
head: Name the chosen relationship: stages over time or complementary success measures.

arc: Decorative directional cue, not a chart. Do not attach an unsupported growth claim to its slope.

nodes: Four to six category-definition pairs for complementary measures; alternatively milestones with explicit dates/order. Never infer sequence from horizontal placement alone.

What can change
Milestones or measurement dimensions, explicitly labelled.
Four-to-six nodes while preserving the chosen relation.

What must survive
State whether nodes are sequential or parallel.
Do not use slope as data.
Temporal order alone does not prove causation.

Before this page
Define the pilot objective and what a successful outcome would need to include; disclose measurement limits. For the alternate progression use, establish the objective and why ordered learning is needed.

What it prepares next
Specify definitions, data collection and decision thresholds for the measurement framework; for progression, show owners and dependencies.

Good uses
A high-level planned progression
Complementary evaluation dimensions when explicitly labelled
Historical groundwork with verified dates

Poor fits
A numeric trend chart
Automatic causal inference from sequence
A detailed Gantt schedule

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair pilot needs a balanced measurement framework. Five parallel lenses follow the source capture’s category-plus-definition reasoning; they are proposed measures, not observed results.

Example slot fills
head: Judge reliability from several directions.

arc: Decorative arc only; no numeric scale, chronology or implied improvement.

nodes: Arrival readiness | Share of confirmed appointments with required parts and technician ready.
First-visit completion | Share of eligible repairs completed on the first confirmed visit.
Repeat visits | Additional visits per job, with reasons recorded.
Resident certainty | Reported confidence in the appointment, using the same question for all respondents.
Checking workload | Staff minutes spent confirming readiness per booking.

Why the example works
The lenses distinguish operational readiness, completion, rework, resident experience and cost of checking. An improvement in one does not prove improvement in all five.

Example qualification
Fictional proposed framework. Define denominators, eligibility, period and collection method before measuring; no pilot result or causal effect is asserted.

Alternate fictional example 1
Alternate inferred use from current HTML: an explicitly planned chronological pilot, not the source capture’s parallel measurement framework.

head: Prepare the service before expanding it.

arc: Retain decorative arc; no numeric scale or growth claim.

nodes: Week 1 | Define readiness criteria with technicians.
Week 2 | Rehearse checks using fictional test bookings.
Weeks 3–4 | Run the limited pilot and log exceptions.
Week 5 | Review failures, workload and resident feedback.
Week 6 | Decide whether to revise, expand or stop.

The ordered planned milestones establish a learning sequence; the final decision is conditional, so the upward art cannot imply inevitable success.

Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: five success-measurement categories under a decorative rising line; it is not a dated timeline. Current markup instead contains five capability-building milestones. The two uses share geometry but differ semantically.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S35-timeline/source.webp
dist/S35-timeline/spread.html
dist/S35-timeline/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
One precisely defined whole.
Six distinct parts at the same conceptual level.
A defensible relationship from each part to the core.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: Identify the system or whole.

head: State what the six parts collectively explain.

core: Name the common capability or proposition.

parts: Six peer contributors. There is no data-slot annotation for this group; map the six actual .orb > .part nodes and retain the explicit limitation.

What can change
Core and part labels.
Icons without adding unsupported relationships.

What must survive
One coherent whole and six distinct peers.
No ranking or percentage implied by placement.
Use a different diagram if links among parts are the actual argument.

Before this page
Define dependability and its practical stakes.

What it prepares next
Explain one part, assign ownership or show how the parts interact.

Good uses
A system overview
Complementary capabilities
A diagnostic checklist

Poor fits
A timeline
A weighted contribution chart
A causal network needing explicit links

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: The complete service

head: Dependable repair needs more than technicians.

core: Dependable repair

parts: Diagnosis
Parts
Skills
Access
Safety
Follow-up

Why the example works
Each part supplies a different condition for dependability; none is presented as a timed step or a measured share of success.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: a central idea with six equally treated surrounding functions; current HTML preserves six parts and central core without individual relationship lines.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S36-orbit/source.webp
dist/S36-orbit/spread.html
dist/S36-orbit/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Three to five complementary actions.
One concise reason or mechanism for each.
A justified emphasis if one row is highlighted.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: The method’s context.

head: What the actions collectively aim to accomplish.

rows: Three to five action-title and reason pairs; mark why one is the present focus, if highlighted.

What can change
Three-to-five actions.
Which action receives emphasis, when justified.

What must survive
Actions jointly support the title.
The highlight has an explicit reason.
A method is not evidence that outcomes occurred.

Before this page
Explain the diagnosed problem and scope of the proposed approach.

What it prepares next
Assign owners, timing and measures to these actions.

Good uses
Ways of working
A compact method
Prioritised moves with reasons

Poor fits
A complex branching workflow
A ranking without criteria

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: How we will work

head: Make each promise testable.

rows: Define readiness | Agree which checks a booking must pass.
Focus: confirm parts | Start here because the pilot is testing parts-related delay.
Record exceptions | Keep uncertain diagnoses and access problems visible.
Review outcomes | Compare reliability with the extra work the checks create.

Why the example works
The highlighted action is the specific test focus; the other rows make it possible to execute and learn honestly.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: four icon-and-text rows with one highlighted border; each row names an action and a short explanation.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S37-pill-rows/source.webp
dist/S37-pill-rows/spread.html
dist/S37-pill-rows/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Six to eight distinct reasons in the default.
A short support or mechanism for each.
Evidence for factual advantages and clear labels for proposed design choices.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: The common case or question the reasons address.

cells: Six to eight title-and-explanation units; each must add a different reason, not restate the same benefit.

What can change
Six-to-eight reasons.
Ruled option supports six concise reasons under a headline.

What must survive
Each cell adds a distinct reason.
Claims remain proportionate to support.
Do not infer ranking from number or colour.

Before this page
Establish the decision criteria for the pilot.

What it prepares next
Inspect the evidence or operational detail behind the most material reasons.

Good uses
A case for a proposal
Distinct benefits with support
A compact principles or safeguard set

Poor fits
A strict sequence
Eight synonyms for one benefit
A claim requiring full evidence in every cell

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: Proposed pilot safeguards

cells: Bounded scope | Start with a small set of repair types.
Clear diagnosis | Separate reported symptoms from confirmed faults.
Visible readiness | Record the part and technician checks.
Honest exceptions | Keep provisional bookings visibly provisional.
Safe alternatives | Explain when replacement is preferable.
Resident feedback | Ask whether the confirmed window was useful.
Workload tracking | Record the time staff spend checking.
Stop criteria | Agree when the process needs revision.

Why the example works
The reasons span scope, technical readiness, honesty, safety and learning; they support responsible testing rather than claiming success.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: eight numbered benefit tiles with short supporting lines; current default retains the eight-cell structure.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S38-benefit-grid/source.webp
dist/S38-benefit-grid/spread.html
dist/S38-benefit-grid/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Two or three defined scopes or editions.
Three to six deliverables with consistent units.
A period, inclusion rules and any material exclusions.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: The scope and applicable period.

table: Header plus three-to-six rows: item and sub-line, then each scope’s inclusion or count. A tick means included only when that meaning is declared.

What can change
Deliverables, two-to-three scopes and period.
Ticks or quantities with explicit meaning.

What must survive
Every column uses the same row definitions.
Planned commitments stay distinct from completion.
Exclusions and unknowns are not left as unexplained blanks.

Before this page
Agree the objective, proposed period and scope options.

What it prepares next
Discuss resourcing, exclusions, acceptance criteria or approval.

Good uses
Scope of work
Edition or market coverage
A delivery commitment summary

Poor fits
Unbounded service promises
Outcome evidence
A calendar needing dependencies

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: Fictional pilot scope · October 2026

table: Headers: Deliverable | North site | South site. Legend: Included means committed in this proposed pilot.

Readiness checks | Before selected bookings | Included | Included

Resident interviews | Completed interviews planned | 3 | 3

Weekly review | Exceptions and workload | 1 per week | 1 per week

Why the example works
The same deliverable is compared across two sites; explicit units prevent a tick being mistaken for a count or a completed result.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: deliverable descriptions are crossed with two market columns containing ticks and counts, under a dated scope label.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S40-scope-table/source.webp
dist/S40-scope-table/spread.html
dist/S40-scope-table/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Three or four distinct concerns.
One directly relevant response for each.
Verified wording if quotes are presented as real; otherwise disclose illustrative wording.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow-left: Identify whether the lines are observed concerns, quotations or fictional examples.

eyebrow-right: Identify the status of the responses: proposed, available or tested.

lines: Three or four short concerns in parallel order.

answers: Exactly one response per concern in the same order.

What can change
Concerns and matched responses.
Glossary option only when the job becomes definition.

What must survive
Equal concern/response counts and stable order.
No response without a matching need.
A label alone is not proof the problem is solved.

Before this page
Show the research or explicitly identify these as hypotheses.

What it prepares next
Explain and test the mechanism behind each response.

Good uses
Need-to-solution mapping
An objection-response overview
A reframing with exact counterparts

Poor fits
Many-to-many dependencies
Unrelated service names
Fictional quotes presented as research

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
eyebrow-left: Fictional concerns

eyebrow-right: Proposed responses

lines: “Will the part be there?”
“Must I wait at home twice?”
“What if repair is unsafe?”
“Who explains a failed repair?”

answers: Parts confirmation
Agreed access window
Safety assessment
Named follow-up owner

Why the example works
Each response addresses a different source of uncertainty; the row alignment makes the one-to-one mapping auditable.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: four first-person pain statements are paired with four service labels; current HTML preserves one-to-one alignment but uses a framing contrast.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S41-pain-vs-solutions/source.webp
dist/S41-pain-vs-solutions/spread.html
dist/S41-pain-vs-solutions/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Three or four distinct principles.
A clear scope and ownership for those commitments.
Concrete implications that can be explained when challenged.

What belongs in each slot
eyebrow: The relationship or practice governed.

head: The purpose of the principles.

values: Three or four complete principles expressed as behaviour or decision rules, not isolated virtue words.

What can change
Three-to-four principles and their wording.
Domain while preserving actionable expectations.

What must survive
Principles are distinct and actionable.
Commitments do not become unverified performance claims.
Scope remains clear.

Before this page
Establish the relationship, service promise and potential tensions.

What it prepares next
Show the operational rules, owners or examples that enact these principles.

Good uses
Partnership expectations
Operating principles
A synthesis after a wider argument

Poor fits
A chronological process
Unverifiable virtue claims
Results reporting

Fictional worked example
Fictional repair cooperative proposal; all events, people and evidence are invented teaching material.

Example slot fills
eyebrow: Working commitments

head: Reliability begins with honest limits.

values: Keep a booking provisional until its readiness checks are complete.
Explain uncertainty before asking a resident to wait.
Recommend replacement when a safe repair is not justified.
Review failed repairs openly and use them to improve the process.

Why the example works
The principles define observable conduct in difficult cases, so they can guide decisions rather than act as decorative values.

Example qualification
Fictional teaching example only. Proposed benefits and results are not verified; replace with authorised material for a real use.

Observed in the inspected material
Viewed source: a partnership heading faces four ruled one-line commitments about collaboration and communication.
Current HTML and active slot contract were inspected.

Interpretation for reuse
The guidance interprets the layout’s communication affordances; it does not assert source-author intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, surrounding source sequence, sample factual claims and persuasion effects are not independently verified.

References inspected
02_product/spreads/S42-values/source.webp
dist/S42-values/spread.html
dist/S42-values/spread.json
https://github.com/neekchan/hoffman-agency-design-system/blob/main/templates/deck/Deck.dc.html

Review basis
reviewed: Viewed retained source capture and inspected current markup/slot contract; reviewed reasoning and example mapping. This is layout-contract review, not source-intent confirmation.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
Two or three distinct themes, each with two or three concrete activities.
One relevant image and one next move.

What belongs in each slot
illustration: Set the shared context; do not use it as proof of delivery.

title: Name the program or its governing point.

sections: Two or three named themes; each bullet belongs to that theme and contributes to the same goal.

highlight: The next move or implication of the combined themes.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.

What must survive
Each theme makes a distinct contribution.
Numbering organizes the list unless a sequence is explicitly justified.

Before this page
Define the barriers the program must remove.

What it prepares next
Assign owners, timing and a success criterion to each theme.

Good uses
Program or workstream overview.

Poor fits
A dependency chain requiring strict order.
A theme with unrelated bullet points.

Fictional worked example
A fictional repair-cooperative pilot groups its proposed activities.

Example slot fills
illustration: Fictional volunteers crossing from a tool store to a neighborhood workshop.

title: Build support on three fronts.

sections: Access: Open evening sessions; Share safe tools.
Learning: Demonstrate diagnosis; Keep written repair notes.
Continuity: Refer complex repairs; Follow up unresolved cases.

highlight: Pilot all three at one branch before expanding.

Why the example works
Access, learning and continuity solve different barriers; the highlight commits to testing their combination instead of treating themes as a delivery sequence.

Example qualification
Every organization, value and assertion in this example is fictional. Replace it with approved, sourced content before use.

Observed in the inspected material
Retained source has a tall image/title left, three numbered theme lists right and a highlight beneath.
Current HTML repeats that structure, with separate wheel and accordion branches.

Interpretation for reuse
The communication job and reuse advice are inferred from the current arrangement and slot contract, not independently confirmed source intent.

Not verified
Original author intent, factual accuracy of sample copy and persuasion effects are not verified.
No confidential archive or proposal corpus was used.

References inspected
dist/S52-photo-lists/spread.json
dist/S52-photo-lists/spread.html
02_product/spreads/S52-photo-lists/source.webp (viewed for arrangement)

Review basis
reviewed: Motif inspected current metadata, active markup and the retained source arrangement, then checked the fictional example against the content roles. This is a layout-contract adaptation review.

Relationship to the default
base

Inputs needed
A defined scope and baseline alternative.
Three or four learning outcomes, two exclusions, effort allocation, an example question and approved fee basis.

What belongs in each slot
title-bar: Identify this option and section.

headline: Explain the meaningful addition over the baseline.

know: Three or four specific questions this scope can answer.

leaves-open: Two material unanswered questions or exclusions.

bars: Effort allocation by stage, distinguishing baseline from added work on a common scale.

question: One concrete question that demonstrates the added scope.

fee: Approved total and five or six explanatory commercial rows.

takeaway: State when this scope is enough, without concealing exclusions.

What can change
Subject, names and wording within the active slot roles.
Illustrations or supporting values where present, with their provenance and limits.