SDT 實務篇・下篇｜語意如何支撐空間決策：法規、基礎工程與 SR／SP

一、篇章定位：實務篇下篇在 SDT 裡負責什麼

在前兩篇實務篇中，SDT 已經分別處理了兩個層次：

• 實務篇（上）：語意在「語句」中的呈現
  空間決策者如何用 PS(空間)／SF(風格)／UM(使用者) 的自然語句說話，卻同時帶著穩定的 6ES(工程語意基座) 語意背景
• 實務篇（中）：語意在「現場」的呈現
  6ES 與 SCL(空間負荷) 如何在材料、線條、光影、維護與設備負荷上，變成可以被看見的現象語氣

本篇（下篇）不再新增新的參數，而是回答一個更具體的問題：

當 PS／SF／UM／6ES／SCL 都已經被看見之後，
這些語意如何在「決策形成的過程」裡維持邏輯與邊界？

本篇僅處理以下幾件事：

• 哪些語意可以成為決策的「支撐基礎」
• 哪些條件屬於不可越線（法規與基礎工程）
• 語意衝突時，如何被辨識為「衝突」，而不是被混在一起
• 多個語意同時存在時，語意如何在閱讀上自然「重排」（SR）
• 決策來到最後一段時，如何透過 FSB（最終語意簡報稿,Final Semantic Brief）整理成簡報可用的語意結果

整篇不說方法、不給做法，只負責描述：
決策是如何被語意支撐、被語意限制、以及被語意整理的。

---

二、決策的三層框架：法規 × 基礎工程 × 語意觀測

在 SDT 中，任何看似複雜的空間決策，最後都可以在三個層次上被閱讀：

2-1｜法規（不可越線）

法規是所有空間決策者(SDP)都無法迴避的背景條件。
不論 PS 屬於住宅、辦公或商業，也不論 SF、UM 如何排列組合，
都不應該超過法規限制而違反安全性，
因此只要涉及下列情境，法規語意應該要先行：

• 建築、室內裝修與消防相關法令
• 結構安全與避難要求
• 法定採光、通風、用途限制等基本條件

在這一層，6ES 與 SCL 只能被閱讀成「在法規框架裡，現場會如何被使用、如何承受負荷」，而不能成為越線理由。
語意可以幫助理解法規的壓力點，但不能修正法規本身。

2-2｜基礎工程（不可越線）

接著空間決策者(SDP)會面臨到的是「工程底線」，一樣不論如何排列，都是必要存在
否則室內設計與室內裝修根本無法在現實世界落地
即便強硬作下去，結果也會無法使用與維護，
因此只要涉及下列情境，基礎工程語意應該要先行：

• 結構與主要構件的穩定性（牆、梁、板的基本可行性）
• 地坪基層的完整性（地板打底、找平、界面處理與底層穩定性）
• 防水、防漏、防火等基礎工種的基本狀態
• 給排水、電力、空調與排熱等設備系統的可行性
• 必要動線的基本成立（門窗位置、開闔範圍、出入口與不可阻斷的通行帶）
• 材料的使用年限、老化方式與維修可近性（非推論，只描述可能存在的現象語意）

當 6ES 或 SF 語氣與這一層產生明顯矛盾時，決策不應該以「語意」為準，而是需要滿足工程底線為準。
語意可以幫助理解基礎工程的壓力點，但不能超越物理定律本身。

2-3｜語意觀測層：
PS(空間)／SF(風格)／UM(使用者)／6ES(工程語意基座)／SCL(空間負荷)

當法規與基礎工程確認在可行範圍內之後，決策才真正進入「語意可讀」的層次。
這一層是本篇的重心，包括：

• PS：空間類型與使用場景的語意入口
• SF：材料、線條、光影與風格節奏的語意入口
• UM：使用頻率、維護能力、預算感受等使用者的語意入口
• 6ES：材料、線條、維護、造價、光影、設備適配的工程語意基座
• SCL：空間整體使用負荷與磨耗壓力的語意提醒

在這一層，語意仍然只負責「被看見、被閱讀」，而不直接變成做法。
當不同語意在同一空間裡出現矛盾時，SDT 會把這種狀態標記為：

語意衝突需要形成一個暫時的「語意優先權（Semantic Priority,SP）」

SP 並不會提供一套放諸四海皆準的公式，只表明：
同層級語意發生衝突時，決策過程中自然出現或透過協調與妥協後的一種暫時排序，
作為此次空間決策者(SDP)後續決策時的判斷標準
下次不同的SDP組成，不同的情境狀態，都有可能新行成一套SP

---

三、語意支撐決策：語意提供哪些「可觀測事實」

實務篇‧下篇，不是替人們做出選擇，而是關心：
當空間決策者(SDP)在做決策時，他們實際上能從 SDT 語意裡看到什麼，
而這些具體工程語意的呈現，是怎麼樣幫助SDP理清思路，從而進行決策的。

3-1｜PS：決策落點的「功能性框架」

在實務決策中，PS 不再負責分類空間，而是負責：

當所有語意都被觀察後，它提供「這組落點在什麼功能框架下成立」。
協助空間決策者(SDP)注意到，這個空間實際上要做什麼
將一些可能的偏離語意拉回

空間決策者（SDP）在這裡會判斷：

• 這組語意落點是否與空間的使用方式一致
• 決策結果是否能支撐該PS的活動節奏
• 在該 PS 下，這組落點是否形成「完整的 空間語意指紋(Spatial Semantic Fingerprint,SSF) 輪廓」

3-2｜SF：決策落點中的「視覺與材料語氣段」

在實務決策中，SF 不再是風格介紹，而是：

當語意重排（Semantic Resequencing,SR）與語意優先權（SP）完成後，
最終能被接受的「材料與線條語氣落點」。
既然決策形成至此，最終留下的風格語氣落在哪裡？
影響到最後成品的模樣。

空間決策者(SDP)會閱讀：

• 決策後的 SF 語氣是否仍能成立，還是會有偏移，甚至相斥
• 材料層級、線條密度與光影語氣是否仍與SDP希望的、期盼的相符
• 是否形成一個語意上可接受、可敘述的 SF 片段

---

3-3｜UM：決策結果是否能被「使用與維護」接受

在實務決策中，UM 的角色不再是分類人群，而是：

協助空間決策者(SDP)注意到，這個空間使用上會遇到甚麼問題
未來的使用方式是否因此偏離
維護負擔是否是在自己的預期之中
這些結果，SDP是否能接受

空間決策者(SDP) 在此判斷：

• 最終落點是否落在 UM 能負擔的維護語氣
• 使用行為是否與 6ES 現象語氣一致
• 若語意衝突，SP 是否已足夠明確地呈現「當次妥協」

3-4｜6ES：決策中被反覆提及的工程語意

6ES 是所有決策對話最終會回到的描述座標。
也是一切對話與決策的基準
當空間決策者(SDP)在會議裡反覆說：

• 「這樣以後不好擦」
• 「這個光線打起來會不會太刺眼」
• 「這樣未來維修會不會很麻煩」

SDP可以依此，把這些自然語句整理回 MDS、LAM、ESA 等語意
在工程面上，具體而直接的進行調整
以最大程度達成SDP在SF(風格) UM(使用者) PS(空間)上的期待目標
讓決策過程不再依賴個人語感，而是回到相同的語意基座。

3-5｜SCL：負載與磨耗的語意提醒

SCL 不決定任何做法，但會在決策過程裡持續提醒：

• 這個空間在使用上是極低負荷還是極高負荷
• 材料與施工在磨耗、污染與維護上的壓力位置
• 某些 SF／UM 組合是否會放大或壓縮負載感受

當所有人都用 SCL 來描述空間時，
「空間被用得多激烈、被要求多乾淨」這類感受，就不再只停留在形容詞。

3-6｜空間語意指紋(Spatial Semantic Fingerprint,SSF)：6ES 上形成的整體的落點輪廓

在實務決策中，空間決策者(SDP）並不是分別閱讀 SF、UM 或 PS。
一旦進入任何一個語意入口（例如從 SF 開始），
語意會自然在 6ES 上形成一種六個向量的自然圖形，且每個都是獨一無二，因此我把它稱作指紋。
在公開語意層中，SSF 只是一種用來描寫這個輪廓的方式，不包含任何計算程序或優先序設定。

• 從 SF 進入，可以看到此風格在材料、線條與維護的整體樣貌
• 從 UM 進入，可以看到使用行為與維護方式在空間中如何影響語意
• 從 PS 進入，可以看到此空間的功能情境如何讓語意呈現不同輪廓

這三個入口最終都會匯成同一張 SSF，語意因此能互相映照。
也因為如此，SDP（特別是設計師）在閱讀 SSF 時，
會自然看到：

• 顧客所在的「PS 情境」（例如家中 vs 辦公 vs 店鋪）是否會形成額外壓力
• 顧客「以 SF 為主的偏好」在實際生活中會遇到什麼
• 顧客「以 UM 呈現的行為限制」與空間語氣之間是否有張力

所以SDP就可以此為參考，進行決策。因此以下用一個生活化示例說明：

3-7｜決策實例

一個顧客表示：「我一個人住，我很喜歡帶一點奢華感、有線條細節的風格。」
(SDT呈現上，語意偏向PS-HOM 居家空間，且同時偏向 SF-C 經典層次風格家族，)
並表示：「我養了一隻掉毛很多的狗，其實我不太有耐心每天清理。」
(SDT呈現上，語意會落在 UM-HULM 高使用 × 低維護語氣)
這時候所有的空間決策者(SDP)就可以透過SDT看到三個PS、SF與UM上SSF的實際指紋
設計師便能以自己的專業做出回應：

「如果你喜歡 SF-C 的奢華感，我建議地板可以用木紋磚，但更好整理，不容易藏毛。」

木紋磚同時具備了SF-C與UM-HULM 的可行性。

---

四、語意重排（Semantic Resequencing,SR）：
多語意同時出現時，決策如何「自然排序」

SR 不處理選擇，只處理「閱讀順序」。
當空間決策者同時面對 PS、SF、UM、6ES、SCL 等多層語意時，
實務上會出現一種很常見的現象：

當一個空間同時帶有：

• SF-C：線條與裝飾較多，材料層級豐富
• UM-HULM：使用頻率高，維護能力有限

在閱讀現場語氣時，往往會發生以下情況：

• 空間決策者會先注意到「這群人能維護到什麼程度」（UM）
• 然後才回頭閱讀「現在這組線條與材料層級是否與 UM 一致」（SF × 6ES）

在 SDT 的語言裡，這種狀態可以被稱為：

• SR：UM 在閱讀順序上被自然放在 SF 之前。

SR 不評價對錯，也不給出解決方案，只提供一種「閱讀架構」，
讓所有人在描述決策過程時不會混淆：
到底是先看到使用行為，還是先看到風格語氣。
在 SDT 裡，SR 只是一種對「決策被如何閱讀」的現象描述，而不是任何固定規則或步驟。

---

五、語意優先權（Semantic Priority,SP）：語意衝突時的暫時排序

SP 只在「同層級語意彼此衝突」時才會浮現。
它不是一張固定表格，而是決策場景中的一種現象語句：

在某一次決策裡，
經過自然傾向、溝通協調與妥協之後，
某些語意在這個階段被暫時放在較前面的位置。
也因此，每次的決策，都有可能產出一個截然不同的 SP，
SP 只是對「這一次決策當下暫時排序結果」的標記，不會變成可沿用的通則或公式。

SP(語意優先權) 與 SR(語意重排) 的差異

• SR：描述的是「閱讀順序」
  多語意同時存在時，人們在理解上會先看哪一塊、後看哪一塊
• SP：描述的是「暫時優先」
  在無法同時滿足所有語意時，哪一種語意在這一次決策裡被暫時放在前面

當一個空間同時帶有：

• SF-C：線條與裝飾較多，材料層級豐富
• UM-HULM：使用頻率高，維護能力有限

在 SR 呈現 UM 在閱讀順序上被自然放在 SF 之前。
但是在 SP 上，卻可能變成 SF 被人工調整到 UM 之前。

---

六、主觀偏好語意(Subjective Preference Bias,SPB) 在決策中的位置：
最後出現、最容易被移動的語氣

SPB 標示的是「明知會影響工程條件，仍基於偏好做出的選擇」。
在決策過程中，SPB 通常有幾個特徵：

• 會在法規與基礎工程確認後，才被明確說出
• 容易與 SF、UM 產生相符或者相反的落點
• 但在 SP 中，卻同時是最容易被壓縮、讓位或延後的腳色，但也可能是相對最優先的腳色。

譬如某一個空間決策者表示：

• 「我就是想要在家裏面放個羅馬柱裝潢」

但這個SDP可能一直以來
都是呈現 SF-M (極簡線性)與 UM-HUHM (高使用 × 高維護)的偏向，
而羅馬柱的6ES很明顯不符這位SDP的前面的偏向

但他就是想，
那他就是可以這樣選，這樣作，這樣決策。
因為SDT只是現象的呈現，只是一個觀察工具，只是協助SDP決策用的道具
決策，必須是由人最後定案，人，才是空間的主人

從語意角度來看，SPB 的角色並不是「壓過其他語意」，
而是讓所有人清楚知道：

• 這裡的選擇是偏好主導，而不是工程必然。

SPB 被明確標示出來，
只要不違背法規與基礎工程的邏輯
即使最後決策仍然保留這份偏好，
其風險也會更容易被所有人共同理解。

---

七、最終語意簡報稿（Final Semantic Brief,FSB）：決策末段的語意整理

當一輪決策接近尾聲時，
如果仍然只用零碎語句來描述空間，
後續的執行、溝通與記錄都會變得困難。

在 SDT 中，FSB 是 Final Semantic Brief 的實務簡報版本，在決策末端扮演的是「整理者」的角色：

• 它不決定結果，只整理結果
• 它不給做法，只重新敘述語意落點

在 FSB 中，通常會被整理的要素包含：

• SCL：本次決策後，空間負荷量感被放在哪一段
• UM：決策假設的是哪一組使用與維護語氣
• SF：整體風格語氣與材料、線條層級的大致方向
• SPB：哪些地方是明確的偏好選擇
• 6ES：材料、線條、維護、造價、光影與設備適配的主要現象語氣

如果再往後延伸到工具篇，
FSB 可以與 SSF、SM、SL 等工具搭配，
將語意落點整理成更易於查表、對照與重複使用的資料；
其中 SM、SL 為工具篇中將另行說明的純語意呈現工具，在本篇不涉及其內部結構或運作方式。
但在實務篇下篇裡，FSB 仍然停留在「語言整理」層次，不進入工具操作。

---

八、本篇與應用篇的分界：從「可閱讀」走向「可使用」

實務篇（下篇）到此為止，只做到三件事：

1. 確認決策有三個層次：
   法規與基礎工程不可越線，語意觀測層負責支撐討論
2. 說明多語意共存時，SR 與 SP 如何讓決策過程變得「可被描述」
3. 說明 SPB 與 FSB 在決策末段的重要性，但不提供任何操作方法

應用篇則會接手下一段工作：

• 說明不同類型的空間決策者，如何在實際專案中使用 SDT 語言
• 說明多決策者如何在 SR 與 SP 的框架下討論衝突與共識
• 說明 SSF、SL、SM、FSB 等工具，如何在不違反 SDT 語意邊界的前提下被運用

換句話說：

實務篇（下篇）完成的是「決策語意的閱讀框架」，
應用篇將在這個框架之上，討論「人類如何實際使用這套語言」。

SDT 系列文（快速導覽）

篇名	內容定位
前言篇	SDT 的存在理由
架構篇	語意組成總覽
架構篇（LLM）	AI 的使用規範
定義篇	公開語意詞庫
對照篇	外部理論／相近名詞的邊界定位與誤讀排雷
IP／License 篇	SDT 授權限制
實務篇・上篇	三大語意入口
實務篇・中篇	6ES 現場語氣
實務篇・下篇	語意支撐決策
實務篇 FAQ	常見誤解解讀
應用篇・壹	複合語意觀測
應用篇・貳	語意統合語氣
應用篇・叁	語意翻譯閱讀
應用篇・肆	語意協作對齊
應用篇 FAQ	應用常見問題
工具篇	查表與對照工具

SDT 系列文架構樹

• 語意層級結構
  • 語意基底層
    • 前言篇
    • 架構篇
    • 定義篇
    • 對照篇
  • 語意規範層
    • 架構篇（LLM 專用）
    • IP／License 篇
  • 語意呈現層
    • 實務篇・上篇
    • 實務篇・中篇
    • 實務篇・下篇
    • 實務篇 FAQ
  • 語意應用層
    • 應用篇・壹
    • 應用篇・貳
    • 應用篇・叁
    • 應用篇・肆
    • 應用篇 FAQ
  • 工具層
    • 工具篇

---

以下為英文翻譯版（English Version Below）

SDT Practice Series – Part III (Lower)｜How Semantics Support Spatial Decisions: Codes, Basic Engineering, and SR / SP

---

I. Position of This Article: What Does the Lower Part of the Practice Series Do in SDT?

In the previous two Practice articles, SDT has already addressed two levels:

Practice (Upper): How semantics appear in “utterances”
How Spatial Decision Participants (SDP) speak in natural language via PS (space) / SF (style) / UM (user), while still carrying a stable 6ES (Six Engineering Semantics) background.

Practice (Middle): How semantics appear “on site”
How 6ES and SCL (Space Load Coefficient) become visible phenomenological tones in materials, lines, light and shadow, maintenance, and equipment load.

This article (Lower) does not introduce any new parameters. Instead, it answers a more concrete question:

Once PS / SF / UM / 6ES / SCL have all been made visible,
how do these semantics maintain logic and boundaries within the process of decision-making?

This article only handles the following:

• Which semantics can serve as “supporting foundations” for decisions
• Which conditions are non-negotiable (codes and basic engineering)
• When semantics conflict, how that state is recognized as “conflict” rather than being blended together
• When multiple semantics coexist, how they are naturally “re-sequenced” in reading (SR)
• When decisions reach their final stretch, how the outcome is organized into a presentation-ready semantic result via FSB (Final Semantic Brief)

Throughout this article, no methods are taught and no procedures are given.
Its sole task is to describe:

• How decisions are supported by semantics
• How they are constrained by semantics
• And how they are organized by semantics

---

II. The Three-Layer Framework of Decisions: Codes × Basic Engineering × Semantic Observation

Within SDT, any seemingly complex spatial decision can ultimately be read across three levels:

2-1｜Codes (Non-Negotiable)

Codes form a background condition that no Spatial Decision Participant (SDP) can avoid.
Regardless of whether PS is residential, office, or commercial, and regardless of how SF and UM are combined, decisions must not exceed code limits or compromise safety. Therefore, whenever the following conditions are involved, code-related semantics must come first:

• Building, interior decoration, and fire safety regulations
• Structural safety and egress requirements
• Statutory requirements such as daylight, ventilation, and use restrictions

At this level, 6ES and SCL can only be read as:

“Within the framework of codes, how will the space be used on site, and how much load will it bear?”

They cannot be used as a reason to cross the line.
Semantics can help us understand where the pressure points of codes lie, but they cannot modify the codes themselves.

2-2｜Basic Engineering (Non-Negotiable)

Next, SDPs face the “engineering bottom line.” Regardless of how anything is arranged, these elements must exist, or else interior design and interior fit-out simply cannot be realized in the real world. Even if one were to forcefully execute the project, the result would be unusable and unmaintainable. Therefore, whenever the following conditions are involved, basic engineering semantics must also come first:

• Stability of structure and major components (basic viability of walls, beams, slabs)
• Integrity of floor substrates (subfloor build-up, leveling, interface treatment, and base stability)
• Basic conditions of fundamental trades such as waterproofing, leak prevention, and fire protection
• Feasibility of building services systems such as plumbing and drainage, electrical power, air-conditioning, and heat exhaust
• Establishment of necessary circulation (door and window locations, swing ranges, entrances/exits, and non-blockable circulation bands)
• Service life of materials, their aging patterns, and maintainability / accessibility (described as possible phenomenological semantics, not as inference)

Whenever 6ES or SF semantics are clearly at odds with this level, decisions should not be made based on “semantics,” but must satisfy the engineering bottom line first.
Semantics can help clarify pressure points in basic engineering, but they cannot override physical laws.

2-3｜Semantic Observation Layer:

PS (space) / SF (style) / UM (user) / 6ES (engineering semantic base) / SCL (space load)

Once codes and basic engineering have been confirmed to be within feasible bounds, decisions can truly enter the level where semantics can be read. This is the main focus of this article and includes:

• PS: Semantic entry point for space type and use scenarios
• SF: Semantic entry point for materials, lines, light and shadow, and stylistic rhythm
• UM: Semantic entry point for user factors such as use frequency, maintenance capacity, and cost sensitivity
• 6ES: Engineering semantic base for materials, lines, maintenance, cost, light, and system adaptability
• SCL: Semantic reminder of overall space load and wear-and-tear pressure

At this level, semantics still only serve to “be seen and read.”
They do not directly turn into methods.

When different semantics conflict within the same space, SDT labels this state as:

A semantic conflict that requires the formation of a temporary Semantic Priority (SP).

SP never provides any universally applicable formula. It only states that:

When semantics at the same level conflict, a temporary ordering naturally arises during decision-making—or is formed through negotiation and compromise—
and serves as the reference standard for subsequent decisions by the current group of SDPs.

Next time, with a different composition of SDPs and under different situational conditions, a completely new SP may emerge.

---

III. Semantics Supporting Decisions: What “Observable Facts” Do Semantics Provide?

The Lower Practice article does not make choices on behalf of people. Instead, it is concerned with:

When SDPs are making decisions, what can they actually see in SDT semantics,
and how does the concrete presentation of engineering semantics help them clarify their thinking and proceed with decisions?

3-1｜PS: The “Functional Framework” of Decision Outcomes

In practical decision-making, PS no longer merely classifies spaces. Instead, it:

• Provides the functional framework within which “this set of semantic positions holds,” after all semantics have been observed
• Helps SDPs notice what this space actually needs to do
• Pulls back semantic drifts that may have strayed too far from actual function

Here, SDPs will judge:

• Whether this set of semantic positions aligns with the way the space will be used
• Whether the decision outcome can support the activity rhythm of that PS
• Whether, under that PS, this set of positions forms a complete Spatial Semantic Fingerprint (SSF) contour

3-2｜SF: The “Visual and Material Segment” of Decision Outcomes

In practical decision-making, SF is no longer a style introduction. Instead, it becomes:

• The final “material and line semantic positions” that remain once Semantic Resequencing (SR) and Semantic Priority (SP) have settled
• In other words: given that decisions have been made up to this point, where does the final stylistic tone land, and how does it affect the completed result?

SDPs will read:

• Whether the SF tone after decisions have been made still holds, or whether it has shifted—or even become contradictory
• Whether material layering, line density, and light-and-shadow semantics still align with what SDPs hoped and expected
• Whether it forms a semantically acceptable and describable SF segment

3-3｜UM: Can Decision Outcomes Be Accepted in Terms of “Use and Maintenance”?

In practical decision-making, the role of UM is no longer to classify user groups. It:

• Helps SDPs notice what problems are likely to arise in actual use of the space
• Indicates whether future usage patterns will drift away from initial assumptions
• Reveals whether maintenance burden stays within expected bounds
• And checks whether SDPs can accept these outcomes

Here, SDPs judge:

• Whether the final positions lie within the maintenance semantics that the UM can bear
• Whether usage behavior is consistent with the 6ES phenomenological tones
• If semantic conflicts occur, whether SP clearly expresses “what was compromised this time”

3-4｜6ES: Engineering Semantics Repeatedly Invoked During Decisions

6ES is the descriptive coordinate system to which all decision dialogues eventually return.
It serves as the base for all conversations and decisions.

When SDPs repeatedly say in meetings:

• “This will be hard to wipe down in the future.”
• “Won’t this lighting be too glaring?”
• “Won’t future maintenance be a hassle like this?”

SDPs can use these natural utterances to organize them back into semantics such as MDS, LAM, and ESA, and make concrete, direct adjustments on the engineering side. This helps them:

• Maximize alignment with their expectations in SF (style), UM (user), and PS (space),
• While grounding the decision process in a shared semantic base, instead of relying solely on personal language feel.

3-5｜SCL: Semantic Reminders of Load and Wear

SCL does not determine any method, but continually reminds participants during decisions:

• Whether the space is subject to extremely low or extremely high use load
• Where pressure points lie in terms of wear, contamination, and maintenance for materials and construction
• Whether certain SF / UM combinations will amplify or compress perceived load

Once everyone uses SCL to describe spaces, feelings such as:

“How intensely a space is used” and “How clean it is expected to be kept”

are no longer confined to adjectives alone.

3-6｜SSF: The Overall Contour of Positions on 6ES

In practical decision-making, SDPs do not read SF, UM, or PS separately.
Once they enter any semantic entry point (for example via SF), semantics naturally form a six-vector diagram on 6ES, and each one is unique. This is why I call it a fingerprint.

Within the Public Semantic Layer, SSF is merely a way of describing this contour. It does not contain any calculation procedures or priority settings.

• Entering from SF, one sees the overall profile of materials, lines, and maintenance
• Entering from UM, one sees how use behavior and maintenance practices shape semantics in the space
• Entering from PS, one sees how functional scenarios of the space cause semantics to present different contours

These three entry points ultimately converge into the same SSF, allowing semantics to reflect one another.
Because of this, SDPs (especially designers) naturally see, when reading the SSF:

• Whether the “PS context” the client lives in (for instance home vs office vs shop) creates additional pressure
• What the client’s “SF-driven preferences” are likely to encounter in real life
• Whether the client’s “UM-expressed behavioral constraints” are in tension with the spatial semantic tone

SDPs can then use this as a reference for decisions. The following everyday example illustrates this:

3-7｜Decision Example

A client says:

“I live alone, and I like styles with a touch of luxury and line detail.”

In SDT terms, this tends to fall into PS-HOM (Home Space Semantics) and also the SF-C (Classic Layered Style Family).

The client also says:

“I have a dog that sheds a lot, and honestly I don’t have the patience to clean every day.”

In SDT terms, this leans toward UM-HULM (High Use × Low Maintenance Capacity Group).

At this point, SDPs can see the actual SSF across PS, SF, and UM. A designer can then respond professionally:

“If you like the SF-C sense of luxury, I recommend using wood-look tiles for the floor.
They still give you that feel, but are easier to clean and don’t trap fur.”

Wood-look tiles simultaneously satisfy the feasibility of SF-C and UM-HULM.

---

IV. Semantic Resequencing (SR):

How Decisions “Naturally Order” Themselves When Multiple Semantics Coexist

SR does not deal with choice; it deals with reading order.

When SDPs face multiple layers of semantics—PS, SF, UM, 6ES, SCL—at the same time, a very common phenomenon emerges in practice:

When a space simultaneously carries:

• SF-C: More lines and ornamentation, rich material layering
• UM-HULM: High use frequency, limited maintenance capacity

Then, when reading the on-site semantic tone, the following often happens:

• SDPs first notice “how much this group can realistically maintain” (UM),
• And only then go back to read “whether the current linework and material layering is consistent with that UM” (SF × 6ES).

In SDT language, this state can be described as:

SR: UM is naturally placed before SF in the reading sequence.

SR does not judge right or wrong, nor does it offer solutions.
It only provides a reading structure, so that when people describe the decision process, they do not confuse:

“Did we first look at usage behavior, or did we first look at stylistic tone?”

In SDT, SR is purely a description of how decisions are read, not a fixed rule or step-by-step procedure.

---

V. Semantic Priority (SP):

Temporary Ordering When Semantics Conflict

SP only emerges when semantics at the same level conflict with one another.
It is not a fixed table, but a type of phenomenological statement in decision scenarios:

In a given decision,
after natural tendencies, communication, and compromise,
certain semantics are temporarily placed in a more prominent position at that stage.

For this reason, each decision process may produce a completely different SP.
SP is merely a label for “the temporary ordering result during that decision,” and does not become a reusable general rule or formula.

Difference Between SP (Semantic Priority) and SR (Semantic Resequencing)

• SR: Describes reading order
  • When multiple semantics coexist, it answers: which part do people naturally look at first, and which part later?
• SP: Describes temporary priority
  • When it is impossible to satisfy all semantics simultaneously, it answers: which semantic is temporarily placed in front in this particular decision?

When a space simultaneously carries:

• SF-C: More lines and ornamentation, rich material layering
• UM-HULM: High use frequency, limited maintenance capacity

SR may show that UM is naturally read before SF.
However, SP might then be manually adjusted so that SF is placed before UM.

---

VI. Subjective Preference Bias (SPB) in Decisions:

The Last to Appear, the Easiest to Move

SPB marks situations where:

“One knowingly affects engineering conditions, yet still makes a choice based on preference.”

In the decision process, SPB typically has several characteristics:

• It tends to be explicitly expressed after codes and basic engineering are confirmed
• It easily lands in either alignment or opposition with SF and UM
• Within SP, it is both the easiest semantic to be compressed, displaced, or postponed, and the one that can sometimes become the most prioritized

For example, a SDP might say:

“I just want to put Roman columns in my home decor.”

Yet this SDP may all along have leaned toward:

• SF-M (Minimal Linearity Style Family) and
• UM-HUHM (High Use × High Maintenance Capacity Group),

while the 6ES profile of Roman columns is clearly inconsistent with this SDP’s previous leaning.

But if that is what they want, they can choose so, act so, and decide so.
Because SDT only presents phenomena; it is only an observation tool and a decision aid for SDPs.

Decisions must ultimately be finalized by people. People are the true owners of space.

From a semantic perspective, SPB’s role is not to “override all other semantics,” but to make it clear to everyone that:

This particular choice is driven by preference, not by engineering necessity.

Once SPB is explicitly marked, as long as it does not violate the logic of codes and basic engineering, even if the final decision preserves that preference, its risks will be more easily understood and shared by all parties.

---

VII. Final Semantic Brief (FSB):

Semantic Organization at the Final Stage of Decisions

As a round of decision-making approaches its end, if space is still described only through scattered sentences, subsequent execution, communication, and documentation will become difficult.

Within SDT, FSB is the practical briefing version of the Final Semantic Brief and plays the role of an organizer at the end of decisions:

• It does not determine results; it organizes them
• It does not prescribe methods; it restates semantic positions

Typically, an FSB organizes the following elements:

• SCL: Where the perceived space load lands after this decision
• UM: Which set of use and maintenance semantics the decision assumes
• SF: The general direction of stylistic tone and of material / line layering
• SPB: Which parts are clearly preference-driven choices
• 6ES: The main phenomenological tones of materials, lines, maintenance, cost, light, and system adaptability

If we extend further into the Tools articles, FSB can be combined with SSF, SM, SL, and other tools to organize semantic positions as data that are easier to look up, compare, and reuse.

Among these, SM (Semantic Matrix) and SL (Semantic Lookup) are purely semantic presentation tools whose internal structures and workings will be explained separately in the Tools articles.

In this Lower Practice article, however, FSB remains at the level of linguistic organization only; it does not enter tool operations.

---

VIII. Boundary Between This Article and the Application Articles:

From “Readable” to “Usable”

By this point, the Lower Practice article has done exactly three things:

1. Confirmed that decisions have three levels:
   • Codes and basic engineering are non-negotiable
   • The semantic observation layer supports the discussion
2. Explained how SR and SP make multi-semantic decision processes “describable”
3. Clarified the importance of SPB and FSB in the final stretch of decisions, without providing any operational methods

The Application articles will take over the next segment of work:

• Explaining how different types of SDPs use SDT language in actual projects
• Explaining how multiple decision-makers discuss conflicts and consensus under the framework of SR and SP
• Explaining how tools such as SSF, SL, SM, and FSB can be used without violating the semantic boundaries of SDT

In other words:

The Lower Practice article completes the “reading framework of decision semantics,”
and the Application articles, on top of this framework, will discuss how humans actually use this language in practice.