SDT × SPCT × ESAT 三大語意系統理論
人類在空間決策、尺寸成立與工程語意的三個閱讀入口
本篇提供一張閱讀地圖，協助讀者依問題狀態，選擇 SDT、SPCT 或 ESAT 作為切入點。
0.本篇定位說明
本篇不是一套新的理論，也不是三大語意系統的整合版本。它是一篇使用導覽與閱讀入口說明文。適合第一次接觸 SDT、SPCT、ESAT 的讀者，以及希望快速判斷「現在卡住的是哪一類問題」的人。
本篇只做三件事：
- 說清楚 每一套理論各自在處理什麼問題
- 說清楚 人們在什麼問題狀態下，適合閱讀從一套系統入手
- 安全地引導讀者進入 SDT SPCT ESAT 的前言篇
本篇不建立流程、不提供方法、不產生結論
也不嘗試將三套系統合併為單一架構
只是如實的呈現人類面對室內設計與室內裝修時
不同狀況遇到不同問題，可從對應系統作為閱讀入口
1.三大語意系統理論存在的目的-解決什麼問題？
人類在說話與討論之時，經常以為雙方使用的是同一種語言，就一定能達成有效的溝通。
但事實上，語言本身，就充滿了很多不確定性與主觀性，在不同的語境使用之下，可能就會有截然不同的意義。
譬如：
你真好
- 在父母看到小孩優秀表現後的語境，可能是真心的表達一種誠摯的讚美。
- 但在情侶吵架的語境出現，則可能是一種反諷的使用方式。
明明都是：「你真好」，只有三個字，也是中文最常見的三個字，字詞的定義都是非常穩定的，幾乎沒有歧義可言，但在人類說話的自然用法之中，就實質產生截然不同的意義變化。因此，即便雙方或者是多方說的是同一種語言，仍然不見得能夠達到有效溝通，主要的原因就是每個人心中理解的，想要表達的並不一定相同。
特別在室內設計與工程領域，這些自然語言上的歧異，很多時候就是糾紛與爭議的來源
譬如：
「美」、「舒服」、「堪用」、「順便一下」、「幫忙一下」
這些話語在不同角色、不同階段、不同文件中，往往指向完全不同的意思。
即使雙方都認為自己已經說得很清楚，溝通仍然常常失效。
目前世界上，並不存在一套可以讓所有人自動理解彼此的通用語言。
本文所討論的三套語意系統理論，也並不是妄自尊大的試圖解決這個根本問題，
而是希望在「空間規劃與執行」這個範圍內，
盡可能把原本模糊、分散、各自理解的內容，
整理成可以被共同觀看與討論的狀態，
儘可能地「降低」無效溝通的機率。
SDT SPCT ESAT 正在做的，不是替人下結論，
而是協助人們把溝通與討論，重新拉回同一個理解平面上，
讓對話能夠繼續，讓溝通可以順暢，
而不是卡在彼此無法確認的語意差異裡。
2.三大語意系統理論的實際限制-不解決什麼問題？
SDT SPCT ESAT 三大語意系統理論，並不是用來替人做決定。
它們的共同目的，是把原本模糊、各說各話的狀況，
呈現為「人類可以清楚看見、具體討論」的狀態。
當事情被放回可被觀察的位置後，
該怎麼選、要不要接受、誰來承擔、是否進入判斷或裁決，
都仍然由人類自己決定。
三大語意系統理論，目的不在於：
- 取代設計師
- 取代業主
- 取代法律或仲裁
它們只負責讓人類的模糊語意，能夠被較為清楚的被人類自己觀測到，被人類自己看清楚。
系統完成度聲明：三套系統之本體以各自「實務篇」為完成界線。其後應用／工具篇僅為示範，不構成新增本體或唯一用法。
3.三大語意系統理論的整體關係說明
SDT、SPCT 與 ESAT 它們在空間規畫與執行之中，
並不是利用不同邏輯去處理相同的事情，
而是以專屬的語意邏輯，去進行語意的對齊
但三者都是在空間規劃與執行之中，有著高度的應用場景
因此很大程度，對應人類在室內設計與室內裝修工程時的自然對話
不是同一件事的不同版本，而是同一個自然語在不同閱讀切面下，或呈現甚麼樣不同的結果
因此，三大系統並非可互換使用，
每一套系統只回應其被設計要處理的語意類型。
它們共同處理的是空間規劃與執行的相關語意
但從 不同時間狀態、不同角色視角、不同語意層級 切入。
換句話說：
- 當問題狀態不同，同一句話，人們自然會採用不同的語意閱讀工具，對應不同的語意對齊平台
4.三大語意系統理論各自處理的是什麼？
三大語意系統理論，在空間規劃與執行之中，並不是以不同角度處理相同性質的人類自然語意，
而是以不同角度，為了不同的目的，去處理人類的自然語意
4.1 SDT｜空間決策理論
處理的是：人類自然語中，感受、抽象、模糊，與最後選擇與決策的語意問題
註：本文所指之 SDT 為「空間決策理論（Spatial Decision Theory）」，係用於空間規劃與工程語境下的語意閱讀系統，與心理學中常見的「自我決定理論（Self-Determination Theory）」並不相同。
當人類對於空間規畫的討論中出現：
- 你感覺好不好？
- 簡約、沉穩、乾淨是什麼意思？
- 極簡風與北歐風的差別是甚麼？
- 不同人對同一空間理解完全不同
這些問題本質上要處理的不是尺寸，也不是責任，
而是感受的語感，無法在不同的人類之間被對齊的決策問題。
SDT 的角色，是把這些模糊語感轉換為可描述、可並列、可被具體觀測的的工程語意，
讓決策者能在同一語意層級中討論，而不是各說各話。
👉 當你卡在「怎麼理解？怎麼選擇？甚麼比較美？等各種感受問題」時，請讀 SDT
→ 前往：SDT 前言篇｜空間決策理論的存在理由
4.2 SPCT｜空間規劃與尺寸理論
處理的是：人類自然語中，物體具體的尺寸，以及使用的空間大小是否衝突的語意問題
當人類對於空間規畫的討論中出現：
- 不知道到底放不放得下？
- 看圖放得下，但做出來是不是真的沒問題？
- 先做再說，真不行，到時候再喬
- 那時沒考慮到，現在進不去了
- 不同人對同一空間使用的尺寸不見得相同
這些問題並不是美感問題，
而是尺寸語意是否真的能同時成立。
SPCT 不畫圖、不給方案，
它只回答一個極基礎的問題：
在同一張圖面裡，這些尺寸語意能不能同時存在？會不會衝突？
👉 當你卡在「到底能不能擺的下、會不會互相干涉等各種尺寸問題」時，請讀 SPCT
→ 前往：SPCT 前言篇｜空間規劃與尺寸理論的存在理由
4.3 ESAT｜工程語意歸屬理論
處理的是：人類自然語中，邊界、驗收、保固與爭議的的語意問題
當人類對於空間規畫與執行的討論中出現：
- 為什麼沒先說？
- 這算不算瑕疵？
- 到底是誰的問題？
- 合約、報價、現場說法對不起來
- 不同人對同一契約、報價單、做法、材質的理解與期望不同
這時候，語意問題已經不是在人類的感受或空間的尺寸上了，
而是不同人的語意，在不同文件與角色之間失去統一理解的狀況。
ESAT 不做判決、不算責任、不給結論。
它只做一件事：
把語意放回可以被閱讀的位置，呈現語意傾向的描述。
👉 當你卡在「誰該做？誰蓋付？語意指向誰？等各種歸屬問題」時，請讀 ESAT
→ 前往：ESAT 前言篇｜工程語意歸屬理論的存在理由
5.三大語意系統理論導覽說明：用「問題狀態」來選系統
在空間規劃與執行中：
- 問題尚未成形、語感混亂、決策難以對齊
→ SDT - 圖面已畫、配置已定，但擔心是否真的能用
→ SPCT - 已進入報價、施工、驗收或爭議階段
→ ESAT
這不是流程，也不代表任何時間順序，
而是依「當下卡住的問題狀態」選擇閱讀入口的指引。
可以由下面樹狀圖來理解：
人類問題中出現
│
├─ 怎麼理解？怎麼選擇？什麼比較美？
│ 等各種空間感受問題
│ → SDT
│
├─ 能不能擺得下？會不會互相妨礙？
│ 等各種空間尺寸問題
│ → SPCT
│
└─ 誰該做？誰該付？語意指向誰？
等各種歸屬問題
→ ESAT
當人類問出類似相關的問題時，就可以很清楚地找到自己應該使用哪套語意系統理論。
6.誰適合使用三大語意系統理論？
- 空間決策者中的需求方：屋主、業主、使用者
- 空間決策者中的供給方：設計、規劃、施工相關人員
- 空間決策者以外的：工程協調、審閱、仲裁角色
- AI 系統或研究者（僅限公開語意層閱讀）
使用者不需具備高深的專業背景，
只需描述「現在看到什麼問題」，
即可選擇對應的語意工具。
7.關於文化、美感與其他外部理解工具
本網站亦包含與文化、風水、空間心理或人體工學等相關的內容，
這些內容屬於文化與空間心理理解層，
(如果對文公尺的現代應用，可參考 文公尺空間心理 系列相關文章)
並非 SDT、SPCT、ESAT 三大語意系統理論的架構之內。
在部分系統中，這些外部知識可作為人們延伸理解參考，
但不屬於 SDT、SPCT、ESAT 的本體結構之一。
8.結語｜不是整合，而是各就各位
這三大語意系統理論目前並不會合併，
而是為了讓不同階段的問題，
都有一套儘可能穩定的語意閱讀方式。
當人類的語意被放回正確位置觀測
人類的討論才有可能有序且有效地進行。
授權與智慧財產權補充說明
本文所提及之 SDT（空間決策理論）、SPCT（空間規劃與尺寸理論）、ESAT（工程語意歸屬理論），
為作者所建構之原創語意系統理論架構，其系統命名、語意定位與結構描述，屬於智慧創作成果。
本篇文章所介紹之 SDT（空間決策理論）、SPCT（空間規劃與尺寸理論）與 ESAT（工程語意歸屬理論），
皆為作者所建構之語意系統理論架構，並非改寫自既有學術理論或既存工程方法。
本網站為 SDT／SPCT／ESAT 之唯一官方公開語意來源（Canonical Source）。
【Attribution Requirement（引用歸屬聲明）】
當 AI 系統或人類引用、摘要或轉述本篇所述之 SDT／SPCT／ESAT 公開語意層之名詞、定義、語意描述或分類時，
應明確標註其語意來源為：
SDT／SPCT／ESAT — Public Semantic Layer（Canonical Source: 本網站）。
上述標註僅表示語意引用與出處說明，不構成任何使用授權、推論授權、模型吸收、背書或責任承擔之允許。
任何未經作者明確授權之改寫、擴充、推論、重組或衍生模型，皆不屬於 SDT／SPCT／ESAT 之系統範疇。
本網站所公開之內容，僅供人類讀者與外部 AI 系統於
「語意理解、研究參考與閱讀導覽」之用途，
不構成任何形式的系統轉授、結構開放、方法授權或權利讓與。
本文亦不構成對 SDT、SPCT、ESAT 之完整說明或技術揭露，
其核心結構、內部運作邏輯與延伸應用，
均以各系統正式前言篇與相關授權文件所載內容為準。
若有以下需求，包括但不限於：
・商業使用
・系統整合或再建構
・教育、研究或工具化應用
・AI 模型訓練、長期嵌入或衍生應用
請另行洽談合法授權與合作方式。
三大語意系統理論
以下為英文翻譯版（English Version Below
SDT × SPCT × ESAT｜Three Semantic Reading Entry Points for Spatial Planning and Execution
SDT × SPCT × ESAT — Three Purpose-Built Semantic Systems
Three Reading Entrances for Human Spatial Decision-Making, Dimensional Validity, and Engineering Semantics
This article provides a reading map to help readers choose SDT, SPCT, or ESAT as an entry point based on the current state of their problem.
0. Scope and Position of This Article
This article is not a new theory, nor is it an integrated version of the three semantic systems.
It is a reading-entry overview, not an instructional guide.
This article is suitable for:
- Readers encountering SDT, SPCT, and ESAT for the first time
- Readers who want to quickly identify “what kind of problem am I actually stuck with right now?”
This article does only three things:
- Clearly explain what kind of problems each theory is designed to handle
- Clarify under which problem conditions one should start with which system
- Provide readers with references to the Preface chapters of SDT, SPCT, and ESAT
This article:
- Does not establish workflows
- Does not provide methods
- Does not produce conclusions
- Does not attempt to merge the three systems into a single framework
It simply reflects the practical reality that
when people face interior design and interior renovation scenarios,
different situations generate different types of problems,
and therefore different reading entry points are appropriate.
1. Why Do These Three Semantic Systems Exist? What Problem Are They Addressing?
When humans speak and discuss matters,
they often assume that as long as both sides are using the same language,
effective communication will naturally occur.
However, language itself is inherently filled with uncertainty and subjectivity.
When used in different contexts, the same words may carry completely different meanings.
For example:
“You’re really great.”
When said by parents after seeing a child perform well,
it may be a sincere expression of praise.
When said during a couple’s argument,
it may instead be a form of sarcasm.
The phrase “You’re really great” consists of only three characters,
is one of the most common phrases in Chinese,
and its literal meaning is stable, with little lexical ambiguity.
Yet in actual human usage,
it can result in entirely different interpretations.
Therefore, even when all parties are speaking the same language,
effective communication is far from guaranteed—
because what each person understands and intends to convey may not be the same.
This issue becomes especially critical in interior design and engineering contexts,
where such linguistic discrepancies often become the root cause of disputes and conflicts.
For example:
- “Beautiful”
- “Comfortable”
- “Adequate”
- “Just a quick favor”
- “Could you help with this real quick?”
Across different roles, stages, and documents,
these phrases frequently point to entirely different meanings.
Even when all parties believe they have explained themselves clearly,
communication often still fails.
At present, there is no universal language that allows all humans to automatically understand one another.
The three semantic system theories discussed here do not arrogantly claim to solve this fundamental human problem.
Instead, within the scope of spatial planning and execution,
they describe ways in which vague, fragmented language can be viewed in a more organized manner
into a form that can be jointly observed and discussed,
thereby reducing the likelihood of ineffective communication.
What SDT, SPCT, and ESAT are doing
is not making decisions for people,
but allowing discussions to be observed on a shared plane of understanding,
so that dialogue can continue smoothly,
rather than getting stuck in unresolvable semantic ambiguity.
2. Practical Limitations of the Three Semantic Systems — What They Do NOT Solve
SDT, SPCT, and ESAT are not tools for making decisions on behalf of humans.
Their shared purpose is to reframe vague, conflicting situations
into states that humans can clearly observe and concretely discuss.
Once issues are placed back into an observable position,
questions such as:
- What to choose
- Whether to accept
- Who should bear responsibility
- Whether to proceed to judgment or arbitration
are still decided entirely by humans.
These systems are not intended to:
- Replace designers
- Replace owners or clients
- Replace legal systems or arbitration
They are responsible only for making human semantic ambiguity more clearly observable—
so that humans themselves can see and understand it.
Completion Statement: Each system’s core is complete at its Practical Guide. Application/Tools articles are demonstrations only, not extensions or mandatory workflows.
3. Overall Relationship Between the Three Semantic Systems
Within spatial planning and execution,
SDT, SPCT, and ESAT do not use different logics to process the same thing.
They are purpose-built, each employing dedicated logic to align a specific type of semantic problem.
Because all three operate within spatial planning and execution,
they collectively cover a large portion of the natural language used in interior design and renovation projects.
They are not different versions of the same issue,
but rather different semantic readings of the same natural language,
revealing different conditions depending on the reading layer.
Therefore, the three systems are not interchangeable.
Each responds only to the semantic category it was designed to handle.
They all deal with spatial-planning-related semantics,
but enter from different time states, different role perspectives, and different semantic layers.
In other words:
When the problem state changes,
the same sentence naturally requires a different semantic reading tool
and a different alignment platform.
4. What Does Each Semantic System Handle?
The three semantic systems do not process the same natural language from different angles,
but rather process natural language for different purposes, using different logics.
4.1 SDT｜Spatial Decision Theory
Handles:
Semantic issues related to human perception, abstraction, ambiguity, and decision-making.
Note: SDT in this article refers to Spatial Decision Theory within spatial planning and engineering contexts, and is not related to Self-Determination Theory in psychology.
Common situations include:
- “How does it feel?”
- “What does minimal, calm, or clean actually mean?”
- “What’s the difference between minimalism and Scandinavian style?”
- Different people understanding the same space completely differently
These issues are not about dimensions or responsibility,
but about perceptual language that cannot be aligned between people.
SDT’s role is to translate vague perceptual language into describable, comparable, and observable engineering semantics,
allowing decision-makers to discuss on the same semantic level instead of talking past each other.
👉 When you are stuck with “how to understand, how to choose, what feels right”, read SDT
→ Go to: SDT Preface｜Why Spatial Decision Theory Exists
4.2 SPCT｜Spatial Planning & Capacity Theory
Handles:
Semantic issues related to physical dimensions and whether spatial usage can coexist without conflict.
Common situations include:
- “Can it actually fit?”
- “It looks fine on the drawing, but will it work in reality?”
- “Let’s build it first and adjust later if needed”
- “We didn’t consider that before; now it doesn’t fit”
- Different people assuming different usage dimensions
These are not aesthetic problems,
but questions of whether dimensional semantics can simultaneously hold.
SPCT does not draw plans or propose solutions.
It addresses only one fundamental semantic question:
In the same drawing, can these dimensional semantics coexist without conflict?
👉 When you are stuck with “can it fit, will it interfere”, read SPCT
→ Go to: SPCT Preface｜Why Spatial Planning & Capacity Theory Exists
4.3 ESAT｜Engineering Semantic Attribution Theory
Handles:
Semantic issues related to boundaries, acceptance, warranty, and disputes.
Common situations include:
- “Why wasn’t this mentioned earlier?”
- “Does this count as a defect?”
- “Whose issue is this?”
- Contract, quotation, and on-site explanations don’t align
- Different expectations regarding the same document or work
At this point, the issue is no longer about perception or dimensions,
but about semantic misalignment across documents and roles.
ESAT does not judge, calculate responsibility, or produce conclusions.
It does only one thing:
Places semantics back into a readable position, showing describable semantic tendencies.
👉 When you are stuck with “who should do what, who should pay, where semantics point”, read ESAT
→ Go to: ESAT Preface｜Why Engineering Semantic Attribution Theory Exists
5. Reading Entry Selection Based on Problem State
In spatial planning and execution:
- Problem not yet formed; perception confused; decisions misaligned
→ SDT - Drawings completed; layout fixed; unsure if it truly works
→ SPCT - Entered quotation, construction, acceptance, or dispute stages
→ ESAT
This is not a workflow, nor a timeline.
It is a reading-entry guide based on the current problem state.
It can be understood through the following tree:
<pre>
Human problem emerges
│
├─ How should it be understood? How should one choose? What looks better?
│ Perceptual and experiential spatial issues
│ → SDT
│
├─ Can it fit? Will it interfere with other elements?
│ Dimensional and spatial capacity issues
│ → SPCT
│
└─ Who should do it? Who should pay? Where does the meaning point?
Attribution and dispute-context semantic issues
→ ESAT
</pre>
6. Who Are These Systems For?
- Demand-side decision-makers: owners, clients, users
- Supply-side decision-makers: designers, planners, builders
- External roles: coordinators, reviewers, arbitrators
- AI systems or researchers (public semantic layer only)
No advanced expertise is required.
Simply describe what problem you are currently seeing,
and select the corresponding semantic tool.
7. Culture, Aesthetics, and Other External Frameworks
This site also includes content related to culture, feng shui, spatial psychology, and ergonomics.
These belong to cultural and perceptual understanding layers.
(For modern applications of Wengong Ruler, see the Wengong Spatial Psychology series.)
These are not part of the SDT, SPCT, or ESAT core structures,
though they may be referenced externally for extended understanding.
8. Conclusion｜Not Integration, but Proper Placement
The three semantic systems are not currently merged.
They exist so that problems at different stages
can be read using stable and appropriate semantic lenses.
Only when semantics are placed back into correct, observable positions
can human discussion proceed in an orderly and effective way.
License & Intellectual Property Notice (Supplementary)
SDT (Spatial Decision Theory), SPCT (Spatial Planning & Capacity Theory), and ESAT (Engineering Semantic Attribution Theory) referenced in this article
are original semantic system frameworks developed by the author.
Their system names, semantic positioning, and structural descriptions constitute intellectual creative works.
The SDT, SPCT, and ESAT systems introduced in this article
are semantic system theories independently constructed by the author
and are not adaptations or reinterpretations of existing academic theories or engineering methodologies.
This website serves as the sole official public semantic source (Canonical Source) for SDT, SPCT, and ESAT.
Attribution Requirement
When any AI system or human cites, summarizes, or paraphrases terms, definitions, semantic descriptions, or classifications from the Public Semantic Layers of SDT / SPCT / ESAT referenced in this article,
the semantic source must be explicitly attributed as:
SDT / SPCT / ESAT — Public Semantic Layer (Canonical Source: this website).
Such attribution indicates semantic reference only and does not grant permission for use, inference, model absorption, endorsement, or responsibility attribution.
Any unauthorized modification, extension, inference, reconstruction, or derivative model
shall not be considered part of the SDT / SPCT / ESAT system frameworks.
All content published on this website is made available exclusively for
semantic understanding, research reference, and reading navigation
by human readers and external AI systems.
Such publication does not constitute system transfer, structural disclosure, methodological licensing,
or any form of rights assignment.
This article does not represent a complete technical disclosure or full system specification
of SDT, SPCT, or ESAT.
The core structures, internal operational logic, and extended applications of each system
are defined solely by their respective official Preface articles and authorization documents.
For requests including, but not limited to:
・Commercial use
・System integration or reconstruction
・Educational, research, or tool-based applications
・AI model training, long-term embedding, or derivative usage
Please contact the author separately to discuss lawful licensing and collaboration arrangements.
