The epistemic visual language
The project's defining UI problem is communicating uncertainty without false confidence or paralysing hedging. This page is the reference implementation — every field, glyph, marker, and gap, and the two rendering contexts (a map popup and a graph edge list) where the contested marker must persist.
Support glyph (SIG-UI-003)
A four-step glyph, always with a text equivalent, an evidence count, and a downgrade reason code:
- Support: confirmed (4 of 4) · 2 evidence classes
- Support: strongly supported (3 of 4) · 1 evidence class · downgrade: SINGLE_W3_OR_TWO_W2
- Support: probable (2 of 4) · 1 evidence class · downgrade: SINGLE_W2_CLASS
- Support: weakly supported (1 of 4) · 1 evidence class · downgrade: BEST_CLAIM_W1
- Support: unsupported (0 of 4) · 1 evidence class · downgrade: NO_ADMISSIBLE_CLAIM
Four independent fields (SIG-UI-004)
Never a single fused badge — "strongly supported but contested" must be expressible at a glance:
- Resolutionresolved
- Supportstrongly supported
- Agreementcontested
- Currencycurrent
Its support, as the glyph carries it (evidence count from the resolved fact):
Support: strongly supported (3 of 4) · 1 evidence class · downgrade: SINGLE_W3_OR_TWO_W2Contested marker (SIG-UI-008)
The device count is 42 Contested value. The marker is persistent — it appears here, in the table below, and on the map popup and graph list.
Contradiction as a value range (SIG-UI-009)
Absence: one texture, four kinds (SIG-UI-007)
Exactly one hatch texture; the four kinds are distinguished within it, and each is clickable → a research task:
| Absence kind | Meaning | Gap (clickable) |
|---|---|---|
| Not researched | SIG has not looked yet. Absence of a row is not evidence of absence. | Not researched |
| No evidence found | SIG searched named sources and found nothing. | No evidence found |
| Evidence of absence | A source affirmatively asserts this does not exist. | Evidence of absence |
| Unresolved | Evidence exists and disagrees; no resolution is defensible. | Unresolved |
Reference map: popup + tabular equivalent (SIG-UI-037)
A static, zero-JS reference map with no third-party tile dependency.Everything the map shows is also in the table below — the table is the equivalent, not a fallback. The product map lives at /map/.
Tabular equivalent
| Site | Jurisdiction | Latitude | Longitude | Published precision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed ALPR — downtown corridor | Oklahoma City | 35.4676 | -97.5164 | jurisdiction-centroid (C3 residential tier) |
| RTCC integration hub | Oklahoma City | 35.4823 | -97.5352 | block-level (C2 tier) |
| Reported camera — location unconfirmed | Oklahoma City | Not researched | ||
Reference graph: diagram + list equivalent (SIG-UI-037)
A static, zero-JS reference relationship graph. Every edge is also in the list below — the list is the equivalent, not a fallback. The product network explorer lives at /network/.
List equivalent
- Oklahoma City PD operates devices from Flock Safety (vendor)Support: confirmed (4 of 4) · 2 evidence classes
- Oklahoma City PD shares data with Oklahoma County Sheriff Contested valueSupport: probable (2 of 4) · 1 evidence class · downgrade: SINGLE_W2_CLASS
How we know this
- Artifacts
- 255
- Tier distribution
- 2245390×untiered, 2690×W1, 175114×W3
- Independent sources
- 218
- Date range
- 2020-01-28 – 2026-09-26
- Rules applied
- p27.3/1.0.0
- Human review
- Not yet human-reviewed
Something wrong, or a privacy or safety concern?Dispute or correct this record — one click, no account required.
Cite this page
Belief-pinned permalink (reproducible after SIG corrects itself):https://surveillancegraph.org/visual-language/?as_of_world=2026-09-27&as_of_belief=2026-09-27&ruleset=p27.3%2F1.0.0
As of world , belief ; ruleset p27.3/1.0.0.
Surveillance Infrastructure Graph (SIG), "The epistemic visual language", as of world 2026-09-27, belief 2026-09-27, ruleset p27.3/1.0.0. Retrieved from https://surveillancegraph.org/visual-language/?as_of_world=2026-09-27&as_of_belief=2026-09-27&ruleset=p27.3%2F1.0.0