wardley-maps.sgit.ai / Shipped

What ships, and what doesn't

Every site in this network publishes a page separating what exists from what is designed. On a mapping site that page has more work to do than usual, because the corpus behind this one over-promises in specific, dated, documentable ways — and because the gap between a specification and its artefacts is itself an interesting Wardley story. A map of this mapping practice would put most of it at Genesis.

That is an awkward thing for a mapping site to admit, which is exactly why it goes near the top rather than in a footer. Nothing below is softened.

What actually ships

Thing	State	Notes
The doctrine assessment	Ships	40 records, every rating naming its evidence, served as a JSON endpoint. Built elsewhere, moved here.
34 resource pages + 11 obituaries	Ships	Every page dated. 26 carry a real screenshot; three captures returned a Cloudflare interstitial and are recorded as blocked rather than published.
Four maps, source and render	Ships	The first rendered SVG Wardley maps in this estate.
The PST pattern write-up	Ships	Never published anywhere before, including in the five agentic-setup guides written by the project that runs it.
The render pipeline	Ships	Was prose for three months. Now a script with the error check that makes it trustworthy.
The link-verification job	Ships	Weekly, publishes its run date, records skips as skips. No sibling site has one.
The definitions endpoint	Ships	35 records, generated from the research table rather than retyped.

What was broken, and is now fixed

Zero of thirteen map sources rendered

Every Mermaid wardley-beta source in the source repository failed, for two mundane reasons: eight-plus used a bare ``` fence with wardley-beta on the next line, four used ```wardley-beta, and one note line was missing its required quotes. Neither fence is recognised; both want ```mermaid with wardley-beta as the first line inside.

The eight PNGs from 24 May 2026 were the only working visuals in the entire corpus. Fixing the thirteen is T2 and turns thirteen dead code blocks into thirteen maps. It is not done yet — those sources live in a private repository, and what ships here is the pipeline and the rule that makes fixing them a five-minute job.

What does not ship, and is not going to pretend otherwise

The living evolution map died on 26 February 2026

Three real maps, all dated the same day. The reviews tree ends on 11 March 2026. That is six months stale, against the corpus's own warning: "a map that was accurate three months ago and hasn't been updated is worse than no map." The role responsible was named, the responsibility was stated, and it still stopped. Q8 asks what would make it work, because "try harder" is evidently not the answer.

No doctrine assessment and no gameplay analysis was ever produced inside the corpus

Both were specified as standing Cartographer responsibilities, with a named principle list for the first and six named gameplays for the second — ILC, ecosystem play, tower-and-moat, Red Queen, sensing engines, open approaches. Gameplay is applied in exactly one paragraph. The doctrine assessment on this site is a different project's, built for pki.sgit.ai, and the page says so.

Thirty-one of thirty-three role definitions never mention Wardley

The teams know their evolution stage; the roles inside them do not. The Explorer Cartographer's own 2,057-word role definition — the role the founding brief called "central to this entire structure" — mentions Wardley zero times. The detail →

"Maps are graphs with position" has no implementation

The strongest architectural idea in the corpus. The reality document lists it as PROPOSED. No stored map graph, no positional query, no map diff, no .owm export, in any of four repositories. It is published as method and labelled as design, which is honest; publishing it without the label would not be.

The map that shows us badly has not been drawn

This is the one that matters most. The corpus asks for it explicitly: "Is there a map that shows us badly? Worth drawing, as the test of whether these are analysis or marketing." It still does not exist — not in the corpus, and not on this site, which has drawn four maps and made all four of them arguments in its own favour. M4 maps this site and is the closest thing, and it is still a map drawn by the party being mapped. Until the unflattering one is drawn, treat every map here accordingly. T1, and it is first on the list.

Eight things that were commissioned and never made

Each is a specific, dated promise the corpus records and does not keep.

Three maps commissioned 28 July 2026 — air gap, translation, evidence chain. The reality document records all three as PROPOSED: "all three need to be built, rendered, and published."
The TLS/SSL skills-landscape map, commissioned 8 June 2026. Never produced.
A competitive-comparison map of the kind the Cartographer reference specifies. The only competitive map that exists attaches maturity judgements to named living companies and is on the do-not-publish list for that reason.
An alternative-axis map. Six alternative axes proposed, zero maps use one — not even air gap → file → API → event-driven, the axis the corpus's own verdict explicitly sanctions.
A doctrine assessment inside the corpus. Standing responsibility, never executed.
A gameplay analysis. Six gameplays named, one paragraph of application.
A Claude skill for maps. Asked for twice. The skills library has no mapping skill.
The map that shows us badly. Above.

Seven tensions this site holds rather than resolves

CC BY inside a CC BY-SA ecosystem. Manageable, and it constrains real editorial choices. Said out loud on its own page rather than hoped past.
The corpus is far ahead of the artefacts. 35 concepts, 194 files, eight working PNGs.
The most original contribution is the least implemented. PST-as-agent-teams is genuinely novel, and 31 of 33 role definitions never got the memo.
The public record and the private record do not touch. Seven years of security-era mapping, then silence, then 194 unpublished files. The bridge is one clause in one co-authored article. This site is that bridge, which means it is making a claim rather than reporting one.
Curating an ecosystem while criticising its indexes. Pointing out that awesome-wardley-maps lists five dead things is fair and useful. It is also the CC0 resource this site benefits from most. Credited warmly while corrected.
The best idea here has no code. See above.
A doctrine self-assessment is the weakest kind of evidence. The page says so itself and keeps saying so. Naming the artefact behind every rating is a good answer. It is not an external audit.

← The doctrine assessment The open questions and tasks →