[ Public ]
FrameworkMetric vocabulary, limits, and screening structure.ReportsReviewed public case histories and score interpretation.CasesEditorial comparisons built from reviewed public reports.Icon setsCanonical provider coverage linked to public reports.Public-service contextOne high-risk coverage context for shared icon decisions.AboutProject origin, creator, and operating boundaries.[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]
Sharp icon
Usable with support
Visible referent: Border Style. Intended message: The icon must communicate Border Style in a digital interface. This Material Symbols asset uses the Sharp style in default interface contexts.
0.70
PCS
0.32
CLL
0.36
NTR
[ Style variants ]
pictoclarity / material-symbols-border-style
[ Diagnostic output ]
0.70 PCS · 0-1 higher is clearer
The report starts with the visible asset, intended message, score, and context. The estimate stays scoped to this case.
pictoclarity / material-symbols-border-style-sharp
Output - Material Symbols Border Style Icon (Sharp)
This reviewed catalog report estimates clarity for Border Style in default interface contexts. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.70
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.32
CLL
Convention Learning Load
0.36
NTR
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
[ CASE INTERPRETATION ]
Usable with support
0.70
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.The pictogram works with labels or context. It applies to this pictogram, this meaning, and this public context.
[ Report trace ]
Context first. Score second. Support last.
01
Framework output for the Material Symbols Border Style icon in the sharp style.
02
Evidence trend review: Public evidence trend has no visible historical evidence source, so it cannot render as a sourced public trend.
03
Primary referent: border style.
04
Review annual evidence before publishing trend or cohort-transfer claims.
[ METRIC DRIVERS ]
Semantic Transparency Score
Input
Expected
Estimated
0.67
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Confusion Risk Index
Input
Possible
Estimated
0.35
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Intervention.Readability Test Score
Input
Visual
Estimated
0.76
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.PictoClarity Score
Input
Estimated
Estimated
0.70
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Usable with support 0.70
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.The pictogram works with labels or context. This level is scoped to the submitted meaning, visual asset, and public-use context.
Last Reviewed
Jul 06, 2026
[ Score scale ]
Usable with support
The label names screening risk for this context. It is not a certification or a measured comprehension rate.
0.80-1.00
Strong clarity
The pictogram communicates well in this context.
Use it, then keep testing with real users.
0.65-0.79
Usable with support
Current report
The pictogram works with labels or context.
Pair it with text and monitor interpretation.
0.50-0.64
Needs intervention
The pictogram carries meaningful clarity risk.
Improve the symbol before relying on it.
0.00-0.49
Not reliable
The pictogram does not communicate enough alone.
Replace it or add strong alternative support.
[ CONVERGENCE PROFILE ]
The profile compares visual evidence, semantic extraction, cultural recognition, time, and cognitive context. It shows agreement between signals, not universal validity.
The radar shows where meaning converges. It does not certify universal validity.
Area
0.41
Balance
0.85
Perceptual
0.75
Semantic
0.67
Functional
0.65
Cultural
0.54
Temporal
0.56
Neurocognitive
0.69
Context Independence
0.70
Collective Resonance
0.54
Weakest Axis
Cultural Convergence
How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions.
Strongest Axis
Perceptual Convergence
How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss.
| Axis | Score | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perceptual Convergence | 0.75 | How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss. |
| Semantic Convergence | 0.67 | How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation. |
| Functional Convergence | 0.65 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.54 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.56 | How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay. |
| Neurocognitive Convergence | 0.69 | How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support. |
| Context Independence | 0.70 | How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues. |
| Collective Resonance | 0.54 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
[ Published findings ]
7 findings
Findings summarize the public reading for this pictogram. They do not replace user testing.
Finding 01
Evidence trend review: Public evidence trend has no visible historical evidence source, so it cannot render as a sourced public trend.
Finding 02
Primary referent: border style.
Finding 03
Implied function: The icon must communicate Border Style in a digital interface..
Finding 04
Metaphor type: functional.
Finding 05
Functional meaning: The icon must communicate Border Style in a digital interface..
Finding 06
PCS total: 0.70.
Finding 07
Weakest convergence axis: Cultural Convergence.
[ Public evidence ]
When annual source series are unavailable, the chart shows the saved metric profile for this report.
Measurement point: 2026
Review
Reference point.
X axis: Measurement point
| Measurement point | PictoClarity Score | Semantic Transparency Score | Convention Learning Load | Neurocognitive Transfer Risk | Evidence Reliability Score | Confusion Risk Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.60 | 0.35 |
asset source
Material Symbols by Google
Unofficial clarity analysis. PictoClarity is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Google. Material Symbols are provided by Google under their published license.
Open source[ Metric scorecard ]
22 metrics
Each metric explains one pressure point. The composite score uses these signals together.
PCS
Driver
0.70
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.PictoClarity Score
Why it matters
The composite score combines visual, semantic, cultural, temporal, and cognitive signals, so visual polish alone does not set the verdict.
model-estimated / derived
STS
0.67
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Semantic Transparency Score
model-estimated / independent
CRI
0.35
0-1 scale; lower is safer. Watch.Confusion Risk Index
model-estimated / derived
VRS
0.73
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Visual Readability Score
measured / independent
PCH
1.00
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Perceptual Cohesion
measured / independent
RTS
0.76
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Readability Test Score
measured / independent
SRS
0.70
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Scale Robustness Score
measured / independent
BRS
0.84
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Blur Robustness Score
measured / independent
TCS
0.78
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Strong.Target Contrast Stability
measured / independent
SDS
0.74
0-1 scale; higher is clearer. Support.Stroke Durability Score
measured / independent
[ RECOMMENDED SUPPORT ]
Recommendation
Review annual evidence before publishing trend or cohort-transfer claims.
Recommendation
Run representative user testing before publication.
Recommendation
Keep the text label visible until semantic transparency is proven.
Recommendation
Keep visible label support when scores sit below strong clarity.
Recommendation
Validate interpretation with representative users before high-risk release.
[ Private testing / Admin invite ]
Access stays invite-only during private testing.
Requests feed the admin invite queue.
Useful context helps select early pilots.