Explaining the orbital rings

When someone first sees the universe view, they ask the same thing every time: "Okay, so what do the circles mean?" Here is a mental model clean enough to say out loud, to anyone, without notes.

The rings: three facts

The rings let us separate causal layers, keeping relationships and their effects in view at a glance.

1 The center is where the evidence piles up. The node in the middle is the focal point: the one with the most corroborated links pointing at it (the highest weighted degree). Everything else is placed relative to it.
2 Each ring out is one causal step. Ring 1 is the direct causes and effects, ring 2 is one step further removed, and so on. The distance is literally hop-count from the center, a breadth-first search over the graph.
3 Size and glow are evidence, not distance. A node's size and brightness show how strongly it's connected through corroborated links. Distance is the ring; strength is the size. Two different axes.

The live universe view, in miniature. The links draw outward one ring at a time, each ring one causal hop from the center, while the two best-evidenced nodes glow teal. Distance is the ring; strength is the size and glow.

Tip: Keep distance and strength apart. Ring = how many causal hops from the center. Size and glow = how much evidence backs it. Once a listener holds those two apart, every other question answers itself.

Distance and strength: two different axes

The same picture, stripped to the one mix-up that trips everyone. A node can be close and barely evidenced, or far and richly evidenced. Closeness is the ring; evidence is the glow. They move independently.

Same center, two nodes. The dim one is close (ring 1, one hop) but barely evidenced. The glowing one is far (ring 3, three hops) yet well evidenced. Closer is not stronger. They are separate axes, which is the single most common misread of the map.

"The node in the middle is where the most evidence converges. Every ring outward is one cause-and-effect step further away: the inner ring is what to understand first, the outer rings are the distant consequences. A node's size and brightness just show how well-evidenced it is, and none of the positions are an AI's opinion. They're computed from the links."

The math is built on trust

The rings and sizes are arithmetic, not a model's guess. A node's ring is its hop-count; its strength is the strongest product of link confidences along the best path to the center. No language model decides where anything sits.

Why it matters: Thematic's governing principle is that AI touches only extraction and the synthesis tip. The map itself is plumbing and arithmetic.

Three things to remember

⚠️ About these rings:

A ring is causal distance. Not importance, not time. How many hops from the current center.
A step is a cause-effect hop. One link from one node to the next, nothing more.
Strength means well-connected. It reads as "well-evidenced through corroborated links." Not "true," not "advice."

Check yourself

Pick the best explanation for each listener. You'll get feedback instantly, no submit button.

1. A teammate asks: "Why is 'interest rates' two rings out instead of in the center?"

2. Someone points at a big bright node in ring 3 and a tiny dim one in ring 1: "So the big one matters more?"

3. A skeptical listener: "Isn't this just the AI deciding what's connected to what?"

Your win: If you nailed all three, you can now explain the rings, hold distance and strength apart, and defend the "formula, not a model" line. That's the whole feature in someone else's head.