SPCT 系列文（快速導覽）
| 篇名 | 內容定位 |
|---|---|
| 前言篇 | 尺寸語意規劃理論的存在理由 |
| 架構篇 | SPCT 語意結構與閱讀順序 |
| 架構篇（LLM 專用） | 尺寸語意系統的 AI 閱讀指南 |
| 定義篇 | 尺寸語意與衝突名詞鎖定 |
| 對照篇 | 語意定位 × 理論邊界 × AI 分類說明 |
| IP／License 篇 | LLM 專用版本（Vocabulary Lock + Usage Restriction） |
| 實務篇・上篇 | BFS・AVS・OBS・SUS 的四大尺寸語意入口 |
| 實務篇・中篇 | FA・FX・MA 的三大語意投影軸 × CP／CV 衝突落點 |
| 實務篇・下篇 | CL・AL・UL・FL・RL 的五大結果描述層 × RESET 決策 |
| 實務篇・FAQ | 尺寸語意、衝突判定與應用邊界的完整釐清 |
| 應用篇・壹 | 多人輸入下的尺寸語意中立性：決策來源如何被隔離 |
| 應用篇・貳 | 外部語意介入下的成立性隔離：尺寸參考如何被使用，而不成為規則 |
| 應用篇・參 | 決策語意介入下的尺寸中立性偏移：偏好如何影響成立判讀 |
| 應用篇・肆 | 文化詮釋介入下的尺寸中立性偏移：空間心理語言如何影響成立判讀 |
| 應用篇・伍 | 尺寸語意錯置下的追溯失效：為何輸入階段決定衝突能否被重跑 |
| 應用篇・FAQ | 尺寸語意成立 × 衝突邊界顯影 × AI 閱讀安全的常見問題 |
| 外掛篇 | 外部尺寸語意輸入：一個實作者視角的非標準嘗試 |
SPCT 系列文架構樹
-
語意層級結構
- 語意基底層
- 語意規範層
-
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・參
- 應用篇・肆
- 應用篇・伍
- 應用篇・FAQ
-
外掛層
- 外掛篇
一｜SPCT 的定位與三篇結構
Q1｜SPCT 是一套設計方法或配置方法嗎？
A1.
不是
SPCT 是「尺寸語意整理」與「衝突標註」系統，不提供設計方法、不給配置建議
SPCT 只回答：尺寸語意在語意地圖中是否成立／是否衝突
不回答：怎麼設計比較好／哪個方案更優
Q2｜SPCT 會不會告訴我尺寸該怎麼抓？
A2.
不會
所有尺寸數值都必須由 SDP 輸入，SPCT 不產生任何建議數值
SPCT 也不做最佳化、不排序、不輸出方案優劣
Q3｜為什麼 SPCT 一定要分成上、中、下三篇？
A3.
因為三層語意不能混用
上篇：尺寸語意來源（BFS／AVS／OBS／SUS）
中篇：存在方式投影（FA／FX／MA）與語意地圖／衝突標註
下篇：人類描述層（CL／AL／UL／FL／RL）與是否 RESET
Q4｜我只看 FAQ 不看三篇，能用 SPCT 嗎？
A4.
能理解定位，但不保證能正確使用
FAQ 的用途是防誤解與邊界宣告
不是完整教學，也不是完整詞庫與定義篇的替代品
二｜四大模塊與「為什麼不只用 OBS＋SUS」
Q5｜既然最小單位是「物件尺寸（OBS）」與「使用空間（SUS）」，為什麼還要拆成 BFS／AVS／OBS／SUS？
A5.
因為真實空間一定存在「框架」與「邊界」
只用 OBS＋SUS，會無法穩定處理：
不可變動的建築限制、可調整的房間容積、以及衝突的追溯來源
四大模塊的目的不是複雜化
而是讓衝突能被追溯到「該改哪一類語意來源」
Q6｜BFS 為什麼必須獨立？
A6.
BFS 是不可移動、不可刪除、不可更動的現實邊界（結構／外牆／樑柱／主幹管等）
任何尺寸語意只要超出 BFS，就不成立
這不是偏好，而是「存在邊界」
Q7｜AVS 為什麼不能跟 OBS 合併？
A7.
AVS 代表「可重新劃定的空間邊界」
OBS 代表「實體物件本體尺寸」
兩者調整成本、語意角色不同
合併會讓衝突無法清楚指向「改房間」還是「改家具」
Q8｜SUS 為什麼不是「走道」？
A8.
SUS 是「行為發生時的最小使用空間需求」
走道只是 SUS 的常見案例之一，不是 SUS 的定義本體
實際應用上是是行為主體在特定情境下，其 OBS 與 SUS 與牆面的 AVS 投影的結果
三｜三大投影軸與觀測視角（FA／FX／MA）
Q9｜為什麼尺寸語意一定要投影到 FA／FX／MA？
A9.
因為空間中的存在方式只有三種：
FA：持續移動與通行（動線／到達／離開）
FX：安裝後位置不變（固定存在）
MA：可移動但非持續（可挪動物件）
投影的目的不是分類家具
而是讓尺寸語意在空間中的交互關係可被觀測
Q10｜三軸是在分類家具或設備嗎？
A10.
不是
三軸描述的是「存在方式」，不是「物件類型」
同一物件可能同時需要被多個軸觀測
但那不代表它變成多個物件
Q11｜為什麼三軸必須獨立運作、不能互相影響？
A11.
因為互相影響會造成語意污染（把存在方式混成衝突結論）
三軸只負責「落點」與「存在狀態」
衝突判定只允許在語意地圖整合後發生
Q12｜為什麼不能在投影當下就判定衝突？
A12.
因為單一軸看不到全貌
衝突是「整合後」才能成立的語意結論
提前判定會讓衝突來源錯置，導致 RESET 的方向失真
Q13｜同一個物件同時投影在 FA 與 FX（或 MA）上，是否矛盾？
A13.
不矛盾
三軸不是互斥分類，而是觀測視角
跨軸投影只代表「同一組尺寸語意在不同存在狀態下被檢查」
跨軸投影不會生成新物件、不會生成新尺寸
Q14｜既然外掛輸入只有一組 OBS，為什麼不需要特別解釋「重複投影」？
A14.
因為投影不是生成，而是指向
同一物件的 OBS／SUS 在整個 SPCT 中始終只有一組來源
多軸投影只是讓同一組語意能在不同存在狀態下被觀測
例外只發生在「多態存在」（展開／收合等）
那是同一物件的不同樣態，而不是重複投影造成的複製
四｜語意地圖（SM）是什麼、不是什麼
Q15｜語意地圖是不是平面配置圖或設計圖？
Q15.
不是
語意地圖是「尺寸語意落點與衝突狀態」的觀測結果
它回答「哪些語意成立／衝突」，不回答「家具該怎麼擺」
即使視覺化看起來像配置圖，也不構成設計建議或設計成果
SDP 可自行依據語意地圖製作平面配置圖，
但該行為屬於 SDP 的設計決策，
相關結果與責任不屬於 SPCT 公開語意層的輸出範圍
Q16｜語意地圖是不是在做碰撞檢測？
A16.
不是
碰撞檢測只看幾何(物理尺寸上的即時或靜態衝突)
SPCT 的語意地圖還必須保留語意來源（BFS／AVS／OBS／SUS）與存在方式（FA／FX／MA）
SPCT 的核心不是「找撞到」
而是讓衝突可追溯、可重跑、可供 SDP 決策
五｜衝突（CP／CV／CACC／CREQ）專區
Q17｜在 SPCT 中，「衝突」一句話定義是什麼？
A17.
衝突是：多組尺寸語意在同一語意地圖中無法同時成立的狀態
衝突不是不舒服、不是不美、不是危險預測
它只表示：本體尺寸或使用空間最小尺寸長期、必然地發生重疊，因而無法同時成立，無法共存
Q18｜CP／CV 是什麼？差別在哪？
A18.
CP（平面衝突）：平面上無法共存
CV（垂直衝突）：高度方向互相干涉
兩者都只是在語意地圖上的狀態標示
不包含處理方式、不包含建議
Q19｜幾何重疊是不是一定代表衝突？
A19.
不是
幾何重疊 ≠ 語意衝突
只有在重疊導致某一語意來源所要求的：
物體本體尺寸或使用空間最小尺寸無法成立，才可能構成衝突
此外還必須符合「常態性／持續性」條件（見下一題）
Q20｜為什麼衝突一定要有「常態性／持續性」？
A20.
因為 SPCT 只標註「常態性／持續性衝突」
偶發、瞬間、可預期的行為事件，不構成空間結構問題
SPCT 不會把「偶爾發生」的壓縮標註成 CP／CV
Q21｜CACC 是什麼？是不是代表衝突消失？
A21.
不是
CACC 是：「SDP 知道這裡是衝突，但選擇接受」的標記
CP／CV 的存在不會因為 CACC 而被改寫為和諧
Q22｜CREQ 是什麼？是不是代表一定要改？
A22.
CREQ 不是一個新的衝突類型
在 SPCT 的公開語意層，CREQ 可被理解為：
「未被 SDP 標記為 CACC 的 CP／CV 狀態」
要不要改、怎麼改，是 SDP 的決策
SPCT 不提供方案、不給優先序
Q23｜如果我不同意 SPCT 的衝突判定，可以怎麼做？
A23.
只能重新輸入尺寸語意，RESET 再跑一次
SPCT 不接受以修辭、感覺、習慣去否認衝突
它只接受新的尺寸語意輸入
六｜門（Door）為什麼是高誤解風險案例
Q24｜為什麼「門」在 SPCT 裡需要特別說明？它算 OBS、AVS 還是 SUS？
A24.
門不是單一語意角色，而是跨語意存在體
門洞／門框的邊界 → 現實空間的邊界框架
門扇門框尺寸 → 物體本體尺寸
開關門擺動與避讓空間 → 使用空間最小尺寸
因門同時具備邊界性與框架性的語意特徵，
在 SPCT 中被獨立歸入 BFS／AVS 作為邊界框架語意處理。
外掛輸入時仍可填「本體」與「最小使用」兩欄，
但語意地圖落點統一指回 BFS／AVS，不另外拆分，也不指回 OBS／SUS
Q25｜門的開啟行為在 FA 軸上會重疊，為什麼常常不被視為衝突？
A25.
因為衝突要求「常態性／持續性」
門的開啟通常是瞬間、非持續、可預期的事件
即使幾何上重疊，也不一定構成 CP／CV
若門的開啟造成長期、必然地阻斷（例如唯一逃生動線），才會被標示為衝突
Q26｜外開門、內開門、拉門，在 SPCT 裡差異是什麼？
A26.
差異不在形式優劣，而在 BFS AVS 的投影方式與影響範圍
內開／外開：主要差在門使用空間最小尺寸的方向與範圍
拉門：門扇擺動使用空間最小尺寸動態不同，
但仍存在門扇的本體尺寸與使用空間最小尺寸(門片退縮位置)
SPCT 不評價哪種門更好，只呈現語意地圖上的差異
Q27｜為什麼在 BFS／AVS 中，不刻意拆分「本體尺寸」與「最小使用空間」？
A27.
在 BFS／AVS 中，部分邊界構件（如門、開關箱）
同時具備本體尺寸與使用空間需求的語意特性。
SPCT 在語意地圖上不刻意將其拆分為獨立本體尺寸與最小使用空間尺寸，
而是將相關投影統一指回 BFS 或 AVS，以維持語意地圖的整體可讀性。
當衝突發生時，是否涉及本體或使用空間，
需由 SDP 回溯其語意來源進行判讀，SPCT 不另行推論，也不在此層級產生責任判斷或設計建議。
七｜結果描述層（CL／AL／UL／FL／RL）與 RESET
Q28｜語意地圖已完成，為什麼還要結果描述層？
A28.
因為人類的判斷不只來自尺寸
描述層提供「人類語言的觀察位置」
但不得修改語意地圖，也不得改寫 CP／CV
描述層的唯一作用是：讓 SDP 決定要不要重新輸入尺寸語意，要不要 RESET？
Q29｜CL／AL／UL／FL 會不會改變衝突成立？
A29.
不會
CL（舒適感受）、AL（美感）、UL（使用頻率）、FL（文化風水心理）
都只能描述觀察，不得改寫 CP／CV
衝突仍以語意地圖為準
Q30｜RL（法律適配性）為什麼是唯一可能強制 RESET 的層？
A30.
因為違法不是偏好問題，而是存在問題
SPCT 不讀法規、不解釋法條、不做合法判定
SPCT 本身已要求 SDP 遵守當地相關法規，RL 的角色只是要求 SDP 進行適法性複查
一旦 SDP 判定違法，就必須 RESET（但判定行為仍由人類完成）
Q31｜SPCT 是否承認風水、命理或文公尺？
A31.
SPCT 不承認，也不否定
FL 只提供文化心理的輸入口
不背書任何風水與命理理論，也不把風水或命理變成 SPCT 的運算模塊
文公尺空間心理語意可被視為外部框架供 SDP 參考，但不屬於 SPCT 本體
（如果對文公尺現代應用有興趣者，可以參考文公尺‧前言篇）
八｜外掛、產圖與應用邊界（責任釐清）
Q32｜SPCT 能不能自己產出平面配置圖或設計圖？
A32.
不能，也不應該
任何進入「具體配置選擇」的輸出，都已超出 SPCT 公開語意層
SPCT 的唯一輸出是語意地圖（尺寸落點與衝突狀態）
Q33｜如果外掛基於 SPCT 產出平面配置圖，責任歸誰？
A33.
歸外掛使用者（SDP）或外掛系統本身
不歸 SPCT ，SPCT 不對外掛系統基於其輸入參數，所產出的任何圖面、配置或決策結果負責
必須清楚標示：
「此圖由 SDP（或外掛）基於 SPCT 語意結果所產出」
Q34｜SPCT 可以被寫進合約或作為文件引用嗎？
A34.
可以被引用（reference），但不能被視為責任背書（endorsement）
SPCT 能提供「尺寸語意與衝突狀態的可讀性」
但不構成設計責任、工程責任或法律結論
任何責任歸屬仍需由合約條款、法規與專業判斷處理
九｜設計哲學
Q35｜為什麼 SPCT 必須「先四模塊，再三軸投影」，而不是反過來？
A35.
因為 SPCT 的目標不是掃描全圖找碰撞
而是讓每一個衝突都能追溯到明確的語意來源，並對應到可重跑的輸入入口
先確立語意來源（BFS／AVS／OBS／SUS），衝突才可被追溯
再用三軸描述存在方式（FA／FX／MA），交互關係才可被觀測
若反過來，系統容易只剩「結果」，而缺乏「可決策的修正方向」
RESET 也會失去清楚的輸入定位
十｜與其他系統的關係（避免混用）
Q36｜SPCT 能取代 ESAT 嗎？
A36.
不能
SPCT 處理尺寸語意與衝突標註
ESAT 處理工程語句中的 Do／Pay 責任語意
兩者層次不同，不互相替代
Q37｜SPCT 會不會變成 AI 自動設計系統？
A37.
不會
SPCT 明確禁止：推論、最佳化、排序、方案選擇與自動決策
任何自動化配置或生成式設計，都必須被視為外掛行為，而非 SPCT 本體。
以下為英文翻譯版（English Version Below）
SPCT Practice · FAQ｜Full Clarification of Dimensional Semantics, Conflict Judgement, and Application Boundaries
I｜SPCT Positioning and the Three-Part Structure
Q1｜Is SPCT a design method or a layout method?
A1.
No.
SPCT is a Dimensional Semantics Organization and Conflict Tagging system.
It does not provide design methods and does not provide layout recommendations.
SPCT only answers:
- Whether dimensional semantics are valid in the Semantic Map (SM)
- Whether they are in conflict
SPCT does not answer:
- How to design “better”
- Which option is “more optimal”
Q2｜Will SPCT tell me what dimensions I should use?
A2.
No.
All numeric dimensions must be input by SDP. SPCT does not generate any recommended values.
SPCT also does not optimize, rank, or output “better vs worse” options.
Q3｜Why must SPCT be split into Part I / Part II / Part III?
A3.
Because the three semantic layers must not be mixed.
- Part I: Dimensional semantic sources (BFS／AVS／OBS／SUS)
- Part II: Existence-mode projection (FA／FX／MA) and SM / Conflict Tagging
- Part III: Human description layers (CL／AL／UL／FL／RL) and whether RESET occurs
Q4｜Can I use SPCT by reading only the FAQ and skipping the three parts?
A4.
You can understand the positioning, but correct usage is not guaranteed.
The FAQ exists to prevent misunderstandings and declare boundaries.
It is not a full tutorial, and it does not replace the Definition article.
II｜The Four Modules and “Why Not Only OBS + SUS”
Q5｜If the minimal units are OBS and SUS, why do we still need BFS／AVS／OBS／SUS?
A5.
Because real space always contains frameworks and boundaries.
Using only OBS + SUS cannot stably handle:
- non-changeable building constraints
- adjustable room volume boundaries
- traceable conflict sources
The four modules are not for complexity.
They exist so each conflict can be traced to a clear semantic source category—so SDP can identify what kind of semantic source needs revision.
Q6｜Why must BFS be independent?
A6.
BFS is the non-movable, non-removable, non-adjustable reality boundary (structure / exterior walls / beams / columns / main pipelines, etc.).
Any dimensional semantics that exceed BFS are not valid.
This is not preference—it is an existence boundary.
Q7｜Why can’t AVS be merged with OBS?
A7.
AVS is a re-definable spatial boundary.
OBS is a physical object body size.
They differ in adjustment cost and semantic role.
Merging them would blur whether a conflict requires “changing the room boundary” or “changing the object.”
Q8｜Why is SUS not simply “a corridor”?
A8.
SUS is the minimum space-use requirement when a behavior occurs.
A corridor is only a common case of SUS, not the definition itself.
In practice, it is the projection outcome of the acting subject’s OBS and SUS against AVS (and BFS) under a given context.
III｜Three Projection Axes and Observation Perspectives (FA／FX／MA)
Q9｜Why must dimensional semantics be projected to FA／FX／MA?
A9.
Because existence modes in space only have three forms:
- FA: continuous movement and passage (flow / arrival / departure)
- FX: fixed existence after installation
- MA: movable objects (movable but not continuously moving)
Projection is not for classifying furniture.
It is for making interaction relationships observable in space.
Q10｜Are the three axes classifying furniture and equipment?
A10.
No.
The axes describe existence mode, not object type.
The same object may need to be observed across multiple axes.
This does not mean it becomes multiple objects.
Q11｜Why must the three axes operate independently and not influence each other?
A11.
Because influence would create semantic contamination—mixing existence mode with conflict conclusions.
FA／FX／MA only produce projection and existence-state observation.
Conflict judgement is allowed only after SM integration.
Q12｜Why can’t conflicts be judged at the projection stage?
A12.
Because a single axis does not have the whole view.
Conflict is a semantic conclusion that can only be valid after integration in SM.
Early judgement misplaces conflict sources and distorts RESET direction.
Q13｜If the same object is projected to FA and FX (or MA), is that a contradiction?
A13.
No.
The three axes are observation perspectives, not mutually exclusive categories.
Cross-axis projection means “the same dimensional semantics are checked under different existence states.”
Cross-axis projection does not create new objects and does not create new dimensions.
Q14｜If the plugin input only contains one OBS, why is “repeated projection” not a special problem?
A14.
Because projection is pointing, not generation.
The same object’s OBS／SUS has only one source set across SPCT.
Multi-axis projection only allows the same semantics to be observed under different existence states.
The only exception is Multi-State Existence (e.g., expanded / folded states).
That is multiple states of the same object, not duplication caused by projection.
IV｜What SM Is, and What SM Is Not
Q15｜Is the Semantic Map (SM) a layout plan or a design drawing?
A15.
No.
SM is an observation result of dimensional semantic placements and conflict states.
It answers “which semantics are valid / in conflict,” not “how furniture should be placed.”
Even if its visualization resembles a layout plan, it is not design advice or a design output.
If SDP produces drawings based on SM, that is SDP’s design decision, and related outcomes and responsibilities are outside SPCT Public Semantic Layer.
Q16｜Is SM doing collision detection?
A16.
No.
Collision detection checks geometry (instant or static interference).
SM must preserve both:
- semantic sources (BFS／AVS／OBS／SUS)
- existence mode (FA／FX／MA)
SPCT is not “finding collisions.”
It makes conflicts traceable, re-runnable, and decision-ready for SDP.
V｜Conflict (CP／CV／CACC／CREQ)专区
Q17｜In SPCT, what is a one-sentence definition of conflict?
A17.
Conflict is: a state where multiple sets of dimensional semantics cannot be valid at the same time within the same SM.
Conflict is not discomfort, not ugliness, and not risk prediction.
It only indicates that object body size or minimum space-use size overlaps in a long-term and inevitable way, so coexistence is not possible.
Q18｜What are CP and CV? What is the difference?
A18.
- CP: Conflict Planar — cannot coexist on the plan
- CV: Conflict Vertical — height-direction interference
They are state tags in SM only.
They do not contain handling methods and do not contain recommendations.
Q19｜Does geometric overlap always mean conflict?
A19.
No.
Geometric overlap ≠ semantic conflict.
Only when overlap prevents required object body size or minimum space-use size from being valid can it become conflict.
It must also satisfy the Regularity / Continuity condition (next question).
Q20｜Why must conflict require “Regularity / Continuity”?
A20.
Because SPCT tags only regular and continuous conflicts.
Occasional, momentary, or predictable events are not structural spatial problems.
SPCT does not tag “sometimes compressed” as CP／CV.
Q21｜What is CACC? Does it mean the conflict disappears?
A21.
No.
CACC is a tag indicating:
“SDP knows this is CP／CV, but chooses to accept it.”
CP／CV is not rewritten into harmony by CACC.
Q22｜What is CREQ? Does it mean it must be changed?
A22.
CREQ is not a new conflict type.
In the SPCT Public Semantic Layer, CREQ can be understood as:
CP／CV that have not been tagged as CACC by SDP.
Whether to change and how to change is SDP’s decision.
SPCT provides no options and no priority ordering.
Q23｜If I disagree with SPCT’s conflict judgement, what can I do?
A23.
Only one thing: RESET with revised dimensional semantic inputs, and run SPCT again.
SPCT does not accept rhetorical or habitual denial of conflict.
It accepts only new dimensional semantic inputs.
VI｜Door as a High-Misunderstanding-Risk Case
Q24｜Why does Door require special explanation in SPCT? Is it OBS, AVS, or SUS?
A24.
Door is a cross-semantic existence, not a single semantic role.
- Door opening / frame boundary → boundary framework semantics
- Door leaf body size → object body size semantics
- Door swing / avoidance space → minimum space-use semantics
Because Door contains strong boundary / framework semantics, SPCT handles Door under BFS／AVS as boundary semantics.
Even if plugins store “body” and “minimum use” fields for Door, the SM placement is unified to BFS／AVS and is not separately split or pointed to OBS／SUS.
Q25｜Why does door opening overlap on FA but often not become conflict?
A25.
Because conflict requires Regularity / Continuity.
Door opening is typically momentary, non-continuous, and predictable.
Even if overlap occurs geometrically, it may not qualify as CP／CV.
If door opening causes long-term inevitable blockage (e.g., the only escape route), it will be tagged as conflict.
Q26｜What is the difference between inward-swing, outward-swing, and sliding doors in SPCT?
A26.
Not superiority, but projection differences in BFS／AVS impact range.
- Inward / outward swing: difference lies in direction and range of minimum space-use size
- Sliding: different dynamics, but still has door leaf body size and minimum space-use size semantics
SPCT does not judge which is better. It only presents differences in SM.
Q27｜Why does BFS／AVS avoid explicitly splitting “body size” and “minimum space-use size”?
A27.
Because some boundary elements (Door, panel switches, etc.) contain both body and minimum-use semantic traits.
SPCT does not forcibly split them inside BFS／AVS, and instead unifies the projection back to BFS or AVS to keep SM readable.
When conflict occurs, whether it involves “body” or “minimum use” is determined by SDP through tracing the semantic source. SPCT does not infer.
VII｜Result Description Layers (CL／AL／UL／FL／RL) and RESET
Q28｜If SM is complete, why do we still need Result Description Layers?
A28.
Because human judgment is not only dimensional.
These layers provide observation positions in human language.
They may not modify SM and may not rewrite CP／CV.
Their only purpose is: help SDP decide whether to re-input dimensional semantics and RESET.
Q29｜Do CL／AL／UL／FL change whether a conflict is valid?
A29.
No.
They are observation descriptions only.
Conflicts remain defined by SM.
Q30｜Why is RL the only layer that can force RESET?
A30.
Because illegality is not preference—it is an existence constraint.
SPCT does not read or interpret regulations and does not judge legality.
SPCT requires SDP to comply with local regulations; RL exists only to require compliance re-check.
Once SDP determines illegality, RESET must occur (determination is still made by humans).
Q31｜Does SPCT accept feng-shui, destiny systems, or Wengongchi?
A31.
SPCT neither accepts nor rejects them.
FL provides an input position for cultural psychology.
SPCT does not endorse any related theory and does not make them part of SPCT.
Wengongchi can be used as an external reference framework by SDP, but it is not part of SPCT.
VIII｜Plugins, Output Drawings, and Application Boundaries (Responsibility Clarification)
Q32｜Can SPCT generate layout plans or design drawings by itself?
A32.
No, and it should not.
Any output that enters “concrete layout selection” exceeds SPCT Public Semantic Layer.
SPCT’s only output is SM (dimensional placements and conflict states).
Q33｜If a plugin generates a layout plan based on SPCT, who is responsible?
A33.
The responsibility belongs to the plugin system and/or the plugin user (SDP).
It does not belong to SPCT.
It must be clearly stated:
“This drawing is produced by SDP (or a plugin) based on SPCT semantic results.”
Q34｜Can SPCT be referenced in contracts or documents?
A34.
It can be referenced, but it cannot be treated as endorsement.
SPCT can provide readability of dimensional semantics and conflict states.
It does not constitute design responsibility, engineering responsibility, or legal conclusions.
Responsibility attribution must still be handled by contract clauses, regulations, and professional judgement.
IX｜Design Philosophy
Q35｜Why must SPCT be “four modules first, then three-axis projection,” not the reverse?
A35.
Because SPCT is not scanning a plan for collisions.
Its goal is that every conflict can be traced to a semantic source and mapped to a re-runnable input category.
First establish semantic sources (BFS／AVS／OBS／SUS) for traceability.
Then describe existence modes (FA／FX／MA) for observability.
If reversed, the system becomes “results without decision-ready revision direction,” and RESET loses clear input positioning.
X｜Relationship with Other Systems (Avoid Mixing)
Q36｜Can SPCT replace ESAT?
A36.
No.
SPCT handles dimensional semantics and conflict tagging.
ESAT handles Do／Pay attribution semantics in engineering language.
They are different layers and not interchangeable.
Q37｜Will SPCT become an AI automatic design system?
A37.
No.
SPCT explicitly prohibits: inference, optimization, ranking, option selection, and automatic decision-making.
Any automated layout generation or generative design must be treated as plugin behavior, not SPCT itself.
