This artifact models the content axis of the definition layer: the per-image visual dimensions and set-level visual relationships carried by visual outputs, plus the lifecycle roles that dimension-specific statements may occupy from intended specification through governance. It is the v2 correction of the content-axis model: same purpose as v1, corrected ontology and topology.

It is architecture, not prompting and not schema. It is aesthetic-agnostic: it describes the shape of an image-payload system, not any brand's aesthetic. It reads against the function-axis companion (docs/layered-reference-and-discretion-architecture-v1.md), the normative-force vocabulary (docs/normative-force-and-durable-layer-pressure-v1.md), and the foundational premises (docs/foundational-premises-v1.md).

v1 named fifteen "payload families" as a flat peer list and drew their resolution as one linear inheritance lattice. An ontology/topology audit found that the list mixed four different kinds of object (realized payload, a cross-image relation, conformance relations, and external obligations/constraints), and that the linear lattice misdrew a convergence problem as a single lineage. v2 corrects this:

• the primary model is visual dimensions × lifecycle roles, not a flat family list;
• normative sources (the inherited scoped statements plus orthogonal resolution inputs) sit outside payload as what converges to specify the dimensions, with typed references as a cross-cutting carrier axis over them;
• resolution is a convergence at the slot that preserves the Axis-B scope spine rather than replacing it;
• normative force is a property of a statement about a dimension, not of the dimension itself.

v1 is preserved unchanged as predecessor evidence.

The reference-function taxonomy answers what role a reference plays; this artifact answers what visual information the image carries. They are orthogonal. Typed references are not a peer source of visual content — a reference is a carrier that anchors, evidences, or constrains statements across the sources (it can anchor lighting, product truth, composition, a prohibition, continuity). In the resolution picture below, references are a cross-cutting function axis, never one independent content branch.

A reference's governing role is assigned within the production ask; it is not intrinsic to the image carrier. The same image may function as product-truth evidence, a directional / scene anchor, a mood reference, a prohibition example, a continuity reference, or non-governing inspiration depending on the package's source of intent, scope, and carrier role. A reference does not carry its own instructions; the production ask states what each carrier governs — and what it does not.

Per-image dimensions (12):

1. subject / product depiction
2. casting / pose / gesture
3. use-state / action
4. lighting
5. color / palette / tonal treatment
6. composition / framing / negative space
7. optics / perspective / depth
8. space / environment / background
9. styling / props / wardrobe
10. material appearance / behavior
11. mood / atmosphere
12. image finish / rendering character

Set-level dimension (1):

13. family / sequence relationship — with two structurally different subtypes: family coherence (an unordered, set-based relation) and sequence / arc progression (an ordered, possibly temporal relation). Evidence earned for one does not transfer to the other.

Two boundaries are stated explicitly to prevent overlap defects:

• material appearance / behavior = properties of the depicted world (fabric weave, nap, reflectivity, drape, wood grain) vs image finish / rendering character = properties of the representation as an image (grain, smoothing, sharpening, bloom, halation, compositing character). Editing history is provenance, not finish.
• casting / pose / gesture = who appears and bodily configuration vs use-state / action = what is happening and the subject/product/action relationship. Coupled in realization; different architectural jobs.

The dimensions are separately articulable and governable, though coupled in realization — lighting moves material appearance, mood, and color; optics moves composition and space; image finish moves texture and tonal response. They are not causally independent.

A dimension is not one thing across the pipeline. Dimension-specific statements may occupy several roles:

intended specification
realized candidate state
conformance observation
selection judgment
governed record

This is the load-bearing move: fidelity, aspect-compliance, and set-coherence are not separate ontological kinds — they are the specification and conformance-observation roles of ordinary dimensions, evaluated against the sources below. Not every dimension occupies every role; governance in particular need not carry a statement for each dimension (see the runtime chain).

These shape the dimensions; they are not carried by the image as content. They divide into three groups that combine differently.

A. Inherited + local scoped visual statements — along the Axis-B scope spine brand system → category / product-class → mode-specific → packet → slot. The brand-scope portion is the brand image grammar: the visual normative statements carried by the brand image system, a visual-domain subsystem housed within the brand-system scope (it operationalizes brand-level intent into visual grammar; it is not an additional inheritance layer). Category conventions, mode/packet intent, and slot-local statements occupy the lower scope positions. This is real inheritance with local specialization — not parallel branches.

B. Orthogonal resolution inputs — they join the scoped stack at slot resolution, not by inheriting from it:

• product truth — authoritative and invariant; it does not vary with context. A slot selectively projects which truth facets become fidelity obligations (profile slot → silhouette + proportion; detail slot → seam + material + joinery; hero slot → identity + overall form). Selective projection, not context inheritance.
• context-profile specialization — a reusable specialization profile that specializes the inherited scoped visual stack for a production context. Its IA home remains held (whether it refines mode-specific or sits beside it); its behavior is specialization.
• output obligations — required aspect ratio, copy-safe region, channel use, etc.
• scoped prohibitions — constraint predicates over one or more dimensions, scoped at brand / category / campaign·packet / slot. Some cross-cutting, some local; not one universal brand filter.

C. Typed references — the orthogonal function axis: cross-cutting carrier relationships that anchor, evidence, or constrain statements across A and B. References are not one more source species; the taxonomy is a conceptual cut describing what a reference does, above any carrier shape.

Two structures coexist; neither replaces the other.

Axis-B scope inheritance (authoritative, unchanged):

brand system → category / product-class → mode-specific → packet → slot

This produces an inherited + locally specialized scoped normative stack (group A).

Convergence at slot resolution — the scoped stack joins the orthogonal inputs:

A. inherited + local scoped visual statements   [brand → category → mode → packet → slot]
  + product truth / selected fidelity facets
  + context-profile specialization
  + output obligations
  + scoped prohibitions
  + typed reference anchors across those statements
        >>
  resolved slot visual specification

Sources converge; the orthogonal inputs do not inherit from one another, and the Axis-B spine remains real inheritance rather than one of several parallel branches.

Obligations and prohibitions operate twice. Some compile into the intended specification (3:4 aspect; copy-safe region; "no visible logo"). The same predicates also survive as conformance predicates after generation ("did the candidate actually satisfy 3:4?"; "is the copy field usable?"; "did a prohibited logo appear?"), because generative execution can violate a correctly resolved specification. Their topology is constraint during specification and conformance predicate during evaluation.

sources + constraints converge
  >> resolved slot visual specification
  >> generation / execution
  >> candidate realized per-image payload + realized set relationships
  >> dimension-level + set-level conformance evaluations
  >> selection judgment
  >> governance record

Visual Payload Architecture // a reference carrier can qualify the source field; source inputs converge into a resolved slot specification; the result is generated, evaluated, selected, governed, and may later return as a reference input. Illustrative — this prose is source truth. Repo-native interactive version (hover/click for definitions): docs/diagrams/asset-pipeline-ASK_visual-payload-architecture.html.

Evaluation precedes selection; selection adjudicates; artifact governance binds — the record carries the trace. Governance does not require one stored record per dimension: a governed asset can record the accepted output, the selection judgment, the rationale, and the controlling specification / references, while some dimension-level evaluation stays implicit inside that judgment. The durable requirement is accountability across the lifecycle, not dimension-by-dimension storage.

Force is visual dimension × lifecycle statement × normative force — a three-way relation. It attaches to the statement or carrier, never to the dimension itself:

candidate lighting observation = descriptive
brand lighting rule            = directive
lighting prohibition           = constraint
lighting reference             = reference
selection finding (lighting)   = judgment
governed acceptance (lighting) = governance

The six force kinds are defined in docs/normative-force-and-durable-layer-pressure-v1.md. This is a bridge to existing vocabulary, not a new force model.

Many dimensions can be articulated as a relatively stable upstream grammar plus a context-specialized setup — lighting is the clean case (a warm, soft register vs a studio key vs an outdoor exposure). A language-versus-setup distinction was observable in the two earlier corpus runs. Its ownership and placement in the architecture — that the brand owns the upstream grammar and context owns the setup — remain architectural claims, not something a blind corpus proves. This is the local form of the method-level bounded generativity primitive (defined and owned at method-ASK); stated here in AP terms only.

Language supplies the upstream grammar; setup narrows a context-specific aperture; and references and constraints can govern either layer. This is the visual-payload instance of a nested aperture — upstream aperture-setting, then a narrower context aperture, then nonjudgmental realization within it.

Two anonymized blind corpus runs predate this revision and tested the v1 flat register. They did not produce or validate the ontology/topology correction. A later terminology catch exposed the post-processing / retouch category error and prompted the audit that produced v2. Their evidence is carried forward only where v2 retains the same observable visual dimensions. Stated precisely:

Supported:

• the observed visual dimensions populate from real imagery, blind;
• recurring corpus-level visual regularities, consistent with a candidate grammar;
• the language-vs-setup distinction is observable;
• set-level coherence / consistency where sets were present.

Not established by the blind runs:

• that those regularities are authoritative, brand-owned grammar (that is an architectural assignment, not a blind-test result);
• product-fidelity conformance (no product truth was supplied);
• slot-obligation compliance (no obligations were supplied);
• prohibition compliance (not positively tested);
• ordered sequence / campaign-arc progression (only unordered family coherence was seen);
• the topology and force model (a population run cannot test relations).

The prior aggregate totals remain historical results of the v1 instrument; v2 does not carry them forward as current scores. A real conformance test needs specification

• product truth + candidate images — a new test class, not a rerun.

Earned by this artifact:

• the dimensions × lifecycle-roles ontology;
• normative sources separated from payload, in groups A / B / C;
• the convergence topology that preserves the Axis-B scope spine;
• references as the orthogonal carrier/function axis;
• obligations/prohibitions as both specification constraints and evaluation predicates;
• force as a statement-level (three-way) relation;
• the material-vs-finish and casting-vs-use boundaries; the explicit distinction between unordered family coherence and ordered sequence / arc progression.

Held, not decided:

• the IA home of the context profile (refines mode-specific vs sits beside it);
• completeness of the dimension set beyond two corpora;
• whether family coherence and sequence / arc progression become two separate dimensions;
• a conformance test class (specification + product truth + candidates), not yet run.

• structure, not schema: no fields, validator, or structured-IA revision proposed;
• aesthetic-agnostic; no real-brand examples;
• references remain the orthogonal function axis, not a peer visual dimension or an independent Axis-B source branch;
• the bounded generativity relation is stated in AP terms; no method doctrine is restated;
• the normative-force section is a bridge to existing vocabulary, not a new model;
• no runtime or package-consumer implication is asserted;
• no new corpus run is in scope; the two prior runs are bounded as stated above, and any specification-based conformance test remains future work.

This is the v2 articulation of the content axis. It supersedes docs/visual-payload-architecture-v1.md, which is preserved unchanged as predecessor evidence. v2 is superseded by any later version that revises the dimensions, the lifecycle roles, the normative sources, or the convergence topology.

• docs/visual-payload-architecture-v1.md — predecessor (preserved as evidence)
• docs/layered-reference-and-discretion-architecture-v1.md — the function-axis companion
• docs/normative-force-and-durable-layer-pressure-v1.md — the six-kind normative-force vocabulary
• docs/creative-discretion-doctrine-v1.md — the bounded-generativity topology / creative-discretion doctrine; AP as a worked instance of the method-level bounded generativity primitive
• docs/structured-ia-model-v2.md and docs/architecture.md — the Axis-B scope spine this artifact preserves
• docs/foundational-premises-v1.md — references, product truth, and output are different objects
• docs/layer-disambiguation-note-v1.md — the project's four uses of "layer"
• docs/brand-intake-acquisition-and-blind-safety-v1.md — the corpus-construction preflight