F1 · Publication Volume 30

Plan–3D–Section Workbench

linked selection, slicing, legends, data probes and source cards

Learning objectives and boundary

  • Explain linked selection, slicing, legends, data probes and source cards as an auditable evidence problem.
  • Separate source observations, controlled derivatives, interpretation and decision state.
  • Apply identity, spatial, semantic, lineage, quality and review checks.
  • Produce a linked-view specification, tested selection contract and reproducible export.

This lesson is part of a general, institution-neutral tutorial and has no relationship to any company or individual. All identifiers, geometries and values in the worked case are explicitly synthetic. The method does not confer professional authority and must not be transferred to a real decision without appropriate sources, competence, law and review.

Core method

Linked views are multiple projections of one evidence state, not separate illustrations. A selected object must retain the same identifier, version, filter state, units and epistemic class in plan, three dimensions and section. The section plane needs origin, orientation, width, vertical exaggeration and projection rule. A data probe should expose source value, derived value, coordinate identity, quality state and citation card.

Visual encodings form a contract. Use stable geological categories, distinguish measured from interpreted geometry, expose filtered and missing data, and avoid letting opacity or perspective imply confidence. Legends must update when filters change. Each view should state its resolution and selection tolerance. Exported images carry the view-state digest so a reviewer can reconstruct camera, slice, layers, filters and selected evidence.

Linked plan, three-dimensional and section views sharing identity, filters and evidence state
Linked plan, three-dimensional and section views sharing identity, filters and evidence state

Record and evidence model

| Field or object | Operational meaning | |---|---| | view_state_id | shared selection, filters, time and versions | | section_definition | origin, azimuth, dip, width and projection | | object_id and epistemic_class | stable identity and evidence tier | | probe_payload | source, derived values, units, quality and citation | | render_digest | camera, legend, style and layer configuration |

Every record carries a version, validity interval, source or derivation link, quality state and review state. Missing, unknown, not applicable and failed are separate states; none is silently represented as zero or an empty string.

Controlled workflow

  1. Define a canonical object and view-state identity.
  2. Link plan, 3D and section selections by object ID.
  3. Declare slice geometry, projection tolerance and exaggeration.
  4. Expose source and derived states through data probes.
  5. Synchronise filters, legends, missingness and uncertainty.
  6. Export the visual with a reproducible view-state digest.

Record each step as an activity with declared inputs, parameters, outputs and checks. A rerun creates the same content or a documented difference; it never overwrites the evidence needed to explain the previous state.

Worked synthetic example

Selecting synthetic interval INT-204 in plan highlights the same interval along DH-S04 in 3D and projects it to section S-B only because it lies within the declared 25 m corridor. The probe shows measured depths, derived endpoints, trajectory version, assay qualifier and source IDs. Increasing the corridor to 50 m issues a new view state and changes the legend count; it does not silently make the interval part of the section.

The example is deliberately small enough to inspect row by row. Its names and numbers are fictional teaching values and cannot be used to infer a real place, right, resource, hazard or organisation.

Quality control and failure modes

Run six gates before accepting the lesson artefact: identity resolves the exact objects; spatial control confirms coordinate and extent validity; semantics preserve units, vocabularies and epistemic class; lineage exposes every transformation and dependency; quality records passed, failed and not-run checks; review binds a disposition to the exact content digest. A failed gate is retained as evidence and blocks only the affected use. It is never converted into a favourable value or hidden to simplify the display.

Common failure modes:

  • Maintaining independent selections in each view
  • Projecting onto a section without a tolerance
  • Hiding filtered or missing objects
  • Using perspective and opacity as confidence
  • Exporting a screenshot without reconstructable state

Practical exercise

Complete the following tasks against a new copy of the synthetic package:

  1. Specify a section-plane contract.
  2. Trace one selection across three views.
  3. Design an evidence-bearing probe card.
  4. Reconstruct an exported view from its digest.

For every answer, cite the package object IDs, show the failed as well as passed checks, and state which conclusion would change if one assumption were reversed.

Completion artefact and verification

Deliver a linked-view specification, tested selection contract and reproducible export. Include a manifest, exact input identities, transformation or reasoning record, machine-readable validation results, human-readable limitations and the current review state. A second reader must be able to trace one accepted conclusion to its source support, one rejected path to its first failed gate and one unknown to the evidence required to resolve it. Rebuild the artefact from a clean location and compare content digests. Completion is withheld when a required source, parameter, permission or review is missing; no substitute data are invented.

Sources