wardley-maps.sgit.ai / Method / You cannot map a gap

You cannot map a gap

Original contribution 28 July 2026 W12 · glossary

you cannot map a gap, because a gap has no evolution.

The claim

A Wardley map positions components on an axis that measures how far each has travelled from novel to ubiquitous. That measurement presupposes something being measured: a thing that exists, that people use, that has a history of getting more certain and more common.

An air gap is not a thing. It is the absence of a connection — a place where two systems that would otherwise be joined are deliberately not joined, and where the joining is done by a person carrying something. There is no component to position, because there is no component. It has not evolved from anything and it is not on its way to anything.

So the interesting question stops being where does the gap sit and becomes what does a value chain look like when there is a gap in the middle of it. And the answer turns out to be a distinctive and reusable map shape.

The shape

this will be a very interesting shape where you can have the top working quite efficiently, and then the middle bit those lines all the way to the left because they're manual… the ends are solved. the middle is people.

Both ends of the chain sit well to the right. The systems on either side of the gap are mature — often commodity — because they have had years of pressure and investment. Everything that crosses the gap sits at the far left, because it is a human being with a USB stick, a clipboard, a phone call, or a form that gets retyped. And the components hanging off that manual step inherit its position, because you cannot be more evolved than the least evolved thing you depend on.

Drawn out, the value chain sags in the middle. That sag is the finding. It is what makes the map an argument rather than an inventory: it says the investment case is not at either end, where everything already works, but in the trough — and it says so visually, before anybody has written a business case.

Why this shape generalises. It is not about air gaps. It appears wherever two evolved systems are joined by a manual, judgement-heavy, or politically-owned step: approvals, reconciliations, handovers between teams, regulatory sign-off, anything that ends with somebody's name on it. Once you have seen the shape, you find it constantly — and the standard reflex, which is to automate the two ends further, is exactly the wrong move.

The contradiction this site has not resolved

"You cannot map a gap" is stated absolutely — and the air-gap map exists, and is described in the same corpus as the sharpest single map in the estate. Both of those cannot be straightforwardly true. Either the claim means something narrower than it says, or the map is doing something other than mapping the gap.

The reading this page finds most defensible: the map does not position the gap; it positions the manual work that exists because of the gap. A person walking a drive between two networks is a component — it is an activity, somebody does it, it has a cost, and it is emphatically at the left-hand end of the axis. The gap itself never appears on the map at all. What appears is its shadow.

That is a reading, not a resolution, and the corpus does not state it. Published unresolved as Q3.

What would falsify it

← The custom-axis verdict Maps are graphs with position →