# Disco — style guide for coding agents

> Generated from the Aesthetary record for **Disco**.
> Research: **Not yet researched** · Build guidance: recorded in 4 of 8 research dimensions.
> No source attached.

## How to use this

Paste this file into your agent as context before asking it to design or build something in this visual language. It states what is established, what is our interpretation, and what nobody has established. Treat all three differently.

**The most important section is "Not researched yet".** Its purpose is to stop you and your agent inventing rules that sound right and are not recorded anywhere.

## What this language is

**Defining:** Mirror-ball refractions, satin sheen, gold on chocolate brown, starburst flare

**Recognise it by:** Mirror-ball refractions scattering specular points across the field, satin sheen on every surface, gold against chocolate brown, and starburst flare where light sources sit. The diagnostic condition is reflected light as the subject: the surfaces exist to throw light, and a matte version of the same palette is Seventies Revival. Gilded uses gold as a static proposition on a still dark ground; here the gold is in motion and catching a light source.

**Family:** Retro & Period Revival
**Era:** 1970s

## What it is arguing

A room lit for being seen in. Every surface is chosen to catch and throw light back, so the design promises glamour and motion rather than comfort — the opposite of the same decade's domestic palette.

**It refuses:** Refuses matte surface, earth tone, and the domestic warmth of its period neighbour.

## What it is not

Commonly confused with these. Getting the difference right matters more than getting the surface right:

- Seventies Revival
- Gilded

## Established rules

Grouped by what kind of claim each is. A requirement of the language and our own interpretation are not interchangeable.

**How to read each rule.** Every rule states two separate things, and neither stands in for the other:

- **Kind of claim** (the heading): From our catalogue entry · Our reading.
- **Evidence** (how it is established): Graded by our research brief · No source attached (`DOCUMENTED`) · From our catalogue entry (`SUPPORTED`) · Our reading (`CURATORIAL`) · Not researched yet (`UNKNOWN`) · No grade recorded (no grade in the record). Where a claim has its own canonical label, the Evidence line gives that label instead of the grade.
- **Product area**: which of the twelve areas the rule belongs to (Layout, Typography, Color, Imagery, Surface, Interface, Motion, Motif, Technique, Form, Hierarchy, Density), mapped from its raw area label in bold. "Context" means the rule is about the Aesthetic (its name, origin, lineage) rather than a part of the design. "Not mapped" means the raw area has no single area yet.
- The code in brackets is the `grade` field at `implementationConstraints.tokenRules.value.rules[].provenance.grade` in https://aesthetary.com/data/disco.json. "From our catalogue entry" means: Stated in Aesthetary’s existing catalogue entry. An outside source is named only where one is linked to the claim.

### From our catalogue entry

_Carried over from Aesthetary's original catalogue entry. The reasoning behind it was never recorded._

- **color** — Colour: jewel; gold on chocolate brown.
  - Kind of claim: From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry · Product area: Color
- **form / motif / surface / technique** — Gloss is the single cross library entry and the discriminator. Matte anywhere prominent breaks it.
  - Kind of claim: From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry · Product area: not mapped

### Our reading

- **hierarchy** — Rank by specular intensity — the brightest highlight leads. Same family as Y2K's gloss ranking, warmer.
  - Kind of claim: Our reading · Evidence: Our reading · Product area: Hierarchy
- **motion** — Refractions travelling across surfaces on a slow rotation — the mirror ball is a rotating light source, so the motion is inherent to the motif rather than imported.
  - Kind of claim: Our reading · Evidence: Our reading · Product area: Motion
- **technique** — Documentation for a distinct disco GRAPHIC language is thin. What is attested for the period is the airbrush as the decade's defining illustration tool — seamless gradient, hyperreal surface, luminous highlight. Aesthetary's disco visual account rests on that plus its own observation.
  - Kind of claim: Our reading · Evidence: Our reading · Product area: Technique

## Positions by area

The overall position recorded for each area. "No overall position recorded" means rules exist for the area but no position above them; the rules still apply. It is not the same as "Not established", which means nobody has researched the area.

- **Color** — Specified
- **Surface** — Specified
- **Motion** — No overall position recorded
- **Technique** — Specified

## Coverage — what has been looked at

One row per research dimension a research pass considered. "Not researched yet" (`UNKNOWN`) means exactly that; a dimension can carry an Aesthetary recommendation and still be unresearched, and those are different things.

| Research dimension | Evidence | Resolved by | Carries a rule |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Composition | Not researched yet | Aesthetary decided | no |
| Typography | Not researched yet | Aesthetary decided | no |
| Hierarchy | Specified · Our reading | Aesthetary decided | yes |
| Colour | Specified · From our catalogue entry | follows the recorded claim | yes |
| Density | Not specified by the source | Aesthetary decided | no |
| Imagery | Not researched yet | Aesthetary decided | no |
| Form/motif/surface/technique | Not researched yet: form, motif · Specified: surface, technique | follows the recorded claim | yes |
| Motion | Not researched yet | Aesthetary decided | yes |

Unresearched: Composition, Typography, Imagery, Motion. Where a rule appears for one of these it is Aesthetary's implementation recommendation, not a property of the language, and its Evidence line above says so.

## Not researched yet

Nobody has established a position for this language on:

- Layout
- Typography
- Imagery
- Interface
- Motif
- Form

**Do not fill these in.** An absent position is absent research, not permission and not a blank for you to complete. If the work needs a decision in one of these areas, make it on other grounds and do not attribute it to this language.

## Grade your own work

18 checks: 9 mechanically testable, 7 needing a person to look, 1 needing a source Aesthetary does not hold, 1 with no recorded position. 4 further research dimensions produced no rule (Composition, Typography, Density, Imagery). This rubric is silent on them. Scores do not add up. A failure against a required rule and a departure from something we invented are not the same result, and no total should let them cancel.

### Recognition — does this read as the intended Aesthetic?

- **[visual_human · recognition signature · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Strip every logo, word and borrowed image out of your work, then show it to someone who knows the collection. Do they land on this Aesthetic? The signature to hold is: Mirror-ball refractions scattering specular points across the field, satin sheen on every surface, gold against chocolate brown, and starburst flare where light sources sit. The diagnostic condition is reflected light as the subject: the surfaces exist to throw light, and a matte version of the same palette is Seventies Revival. Gilded uses gold as a static proposition on a still dark ground; here the gold is in motion and catching a light source.
  - _If it fails:_ The work may be competent and still read as a different Aesthetic, or as none. Nothing below matters until this passes.

### Fidelity — are its defining rules present?

- **[unassessable · no recorded position · Evidence: Not researched yet (`UNKNOWN`)]** Nothing is recorded as a requirement of this Aesthetic. There is no rule here that your work must hold — which means nothing you do can fail this dimension, and nothing you do can satisfy it either. That is missing research, not freedom: our research brief does record failure modes to avoid, listed under avoidance below. They are recorded judgement, not requirements.
  - _If it fails:_ Not applicable. An empty dimension is an absence of research, never a pass and never a failure.

### Implementation — were those rules translated appropriately into this medium?

- **[visual_human · Our reading · Evidence: Our reading]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Rank by specular intensity — the brightest highlight leads. Same family as Y2K's gloss ranking, warmer.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.
- **[visual_human · From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Colour: jewel; gold on chocolate brown.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.
- **[visual_human · From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Gloss is the single cross library entry and the discriminator. Matte anywhere prominent breaks it.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.
- **[visual_human · Our reading · Evidence: Our reading]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Refractions travelling across surfaces on a slow rotation — the mirror ball is a rotating light source, so the motion is inherent to the motif rather than imported.
  - _If it fails:_ Nothing. No one has researched the dimension yet, and this is only what Aesthetary would do. Departing from it costs you nothing.
- **[evidence_dependent · Our reading · Evidence: Our reading]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Documentation for a distinct disco GRAPHIC language is thin. What is attested for the period is the airbrush as the decade's defining illustration tool — seamless gradient, hyperreal surface, luminous highlight. Aesthetary's disco visual account rests on that plus its own observation.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.

### Avoidance — known failure modes, neighbour drift, cloning

- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No matte surface.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No earth palette or film grain.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No daylight.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No stillness in the primary surface.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No restraint in the highlight.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[visual_human · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Have you made any of these changes? Each one moves the work into a neighbouring Aesthetic: Against Seventies Revival (live, briefed): nightlife versus domestic; sheen versus grain; bright accent versus its prohibition. Against Gilded (live): moving reflected gold versus static proposed gold. Anti-signature: matte the surfaces and it becomes Seventies Revival. Still the light and centre the symmetry and it becomes Gilded.
  - _If it fails:_ You have built the neighbour. That may be fine — but name which Aesthetic you are in.
- **[mechanical · declared closure · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: Not open: matte finish.
  - _If it fails:_ This one is closed, not open. The record says generation must not go here.
- **[mechanical · declared closure · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: Not open: earth tones.
  - _If it fails:_ This one is closed, not open. The record says generation must not go here.
- **[mechanical · declared closure · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: Not open: killing the light source..
  - _If it fails:_ This one is closed, not open. The record says generation must not go here.
- **[visual_human · neighbour drift · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Could your work be mistaken for Seventies Revival? That language is: Earth palette with no bright accent; warmth without brightness
  - _If it fails:_ Not necessarily wrong, but you are closer to Seventies Revival than to this Aesthetic.

### Accessibility — the Aesthetic preserved without its inaccessible practice

- **[mechanical · recorded accessibility cost · Evidence: No grade recorded]** This Aesthetic accepts "Daylight legibility" as a cost. Your reader did not. Does your work carry that cost in the decorative layer only — display, demonstration, atmosphere — while every passage meant to be read holds a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1?
  - _If it fails:_ You have inherited a historical cost that the language never required you to pass on. The Aesthetic survives at AA on reading matter; reproducing the cost is a choice, not fidelity.

**Not covered at all:** Composition: Not researched yet; Typography: Not researched yet; Density: Not specified by the source; Imagery: Not researched yet. These research dimensions produced no rule, so there is no check. Treat them as unscored, never as passed and never as failed.

## Rules for the agent

1. Do not invent rules for any area listed under **Not researched yet**.
2. Do not treat an absent position as permission to do anything you like — say that the language has no position, and decide on other grounds.
3. Keep our interpretations separable from the language's own requirements. If asked to justify a choice, cite which kind of claim it came from.
4. If you need something this record does not contain, say so rather than producing a confident answer from the aesthetic's name.
5. When you self-score against "Grade your own work", score only checks marked `mechanical`. Declare `visual_human` and `evidence_dependent` checks unjudged rather than guessing, and never score an `unassessable` one.
6. Evidence "Not researched yet" (`UNKNOWN`) is never a failure. It means nobody researched the dimension, so departing from what is written there costs nothing and must not be reported as a defect. "No grade recorded" is not a grade either: do not treat it as our decision or as an outside source.

## Provenance

- Record: `disco` · status `draft` · research `not_researched`
- Full structured record: https://aesthetary.com/data/disco.json
- Human-readable record: https://aesthetary.com/a/disco.html
- This file is a snapshot. The record may have changed since; check the page above.

_Aesthetary is an alpha. Where a page says nothing, nobody has done the work yet._