Where we lose
This site is published by the sgit project. Every entry catalogued so far was rendered from a brief written inside that same project, on a sibling site the project also publishes. That is a participant's position, not a neutral one.
Where this is not, and cannot yet be, what it argues for
1 · One entry, one source
A catalogue with a single source site is not evidence the model generalises to a different team's briefs, a different house style, or work outside the sgit.ai family. Stated as open, not solved.
2 · The trail is only as good as who fills it in
Nothing here verifies a metadata.json's claims against the source brief automatically — admin/build/validate.js checks the fields exist and the image resolves, not that the source link is accurate. That is a person's honesty, not a machine guarantee.
3 · Curation is invisible selection
"Only the ones someone chose to catalogue" (stated on the front page) means this catalogue reflects one person's or one team's judgement of what was worth keeping, silently, on every page that does not say so explicitly.
4 · No verification that a picture matches its brief
An infographic can misdraw or oversimplify what its source brief actually said, and nothing on this site checks for that beyond a human reading both. The one entry so far says as much in its own agent block.
The licence position
| Material | Licence |
|---|---|
This site's own content — every page, llms.txt, index.md, the brief pack in briefs/ | CC BY 4.0 |
| This site's code — build tooling, stylesheet, workflow | Apache 2.0 |
| Each catalogued infographic and its metadata | Stated per entry in its own metadata.json licence field — do not assume CC BY 4.0 applies to an image without checking |