[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]
Material Symbols Arrow Circle Up Icon (Outlined). Needs intervention.
Visible referent: arrow circle up. Intended message: The icon must communicate Arrow Circle Up in a digital interface.. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.
0.61
PCS
0.40
CLL
0.51
NTR
[ FEATURED PICTOGRAM ]
pictoclarity / material-symbols-arrow-circle-up-outlined
Output - Material Symbols Arrow Circle Up Icon (Outlined)
Assessing the communicative effectiveness of the Arrow Circle Up icon
This reviewed catalog report estimates clarity for Arrow Circle Up in default interface contexts. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.61
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.40
CLL
Convention Learning Load
0.51
NTR
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
[ HOW THE CASE READS ]
From Input To Public Evidence.
The application stores structured evidence. The public page turns it into a readable pictogram case history.
01
Submitted Context
Framework output for the Material Symbols Arrow Circle Up icon in the outlined style.
02
Primary Finding
Primary referent: arrow circle up.
03
Metric Reading
Implied function: The icon must communicate Arrow Circle Up in a digital interface..
04
Public Recommendation
Conduct representative user testing across diverse user groups to validate comprehension and reduce confusion risks, especially given the moderate semantic and functional convergence and weak cultural resonance.
[ EVIDENCE SCREENING ]
What The Estimate Surfaces.
Semantic Transparency Score
Input
Expected
Estimated
0.55
Confusion Risk Index
Input
Possible
Estimated
0.58
Readability Test Score
Input
Visual
Estimated
0.75
PictoClarity Score
Input
Estimated
Estimated
0.61
Needs intervention 0.61
The pictogram carries meaningful clarity risk. The estimate applies to this pictogram, this meaning, and this public context.
Last Reviewed
Jun 23, 2026
[ SCORE SCALE ]
The Public Verdict Has A Range.
The level explains the estimated context. It is not a certification.
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
The pictogram works with labels or context.
Pair it with text and monitor interpretation.
0.50-0.64
Needs intervention
Current report
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 ]
Where Meaning Converges.
The profile compares visual evidence, semantic extraction, cultural recognition, time, and cognitive context. It describes estimated convergence, not universal validity.
Convergent meaning profile
The radar shows where meaning converges. It does not certify universal validity.
Area
0.26
Balance
0.70
Perceptual
0.75
Semantic
0.55
Functional
0.60
Cultural
0.32
Temporal
0.57
Neurocognitive
0.56
Context Independence
0.58
Collective Resonance
0.25
Weakest Axis
Collective Resonance
How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence.
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 | 0.55 | How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation. |
| Functional Convergence | 0.60 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.32 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.57 | How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay. |
| Neurocognitive Convergence | 0.56 | How strongly the symbol follows AAC pictogram reading: transparent referent, concrete action, low convention load, and support. |
| Context Independence | 0.58 | How strongly meaning survives without external labels or placement cues. |
| Collective Resonance | 0.25 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
Evidence Notes.
8 Findings Published
Evidence
Primary referent: arrow circle up.
Evidence
Implied function: The icon must communicate Arrow Circle Up in a digital interface..
Evidence
Metaphor type: functional.
Evidence
The icon clearly represents an upward-pointing arrow enclosed in a circle, aligning well with the intended message of 'Arrow Circle Up' for digital interfaces.
Evidence
Visual metrics indicate strong perceptual clarity and robustness, with a high overall visual score (0.77) and particularly strong scores in visual complexity, cohesion, and detail preservation.
Evidence
Semantic and functional convergence scores are moderate (0.55 and 0.60 respectively), showing the icon generally conveys its intended meaning and function but with some ambiguity potential.
Evidence
Cultural convergence is notably weak (0.32), reflecting limited widespread cultural recognition and evidence supporting shared understanding of this symbol.
Evidence
Temporal convergence (0.57) and neurocognitive convergence (0.56) suggest moderate persistence of meaning over time and reasonable alignment with pictogram reading principles, but some reliance on learned conventions remains.
[ TRANSFER / METRIC CHART ]
Public evidence trend
The chart shows public evidence buckets by evidence year. Cohort breakpoints appear only when an aging referent is active.
Public evidence trend
Evidence year: 2026
Evaluation
Reference point.
X axis: Evidence year
| Evidence year | Semantic Transparency | Cultural Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| 1997 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| 1998 | 0.75 | 0.74 |
| 1999 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| 2000 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2001 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| 2002 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2003 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2004 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2005 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2006 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2007 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2008 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2009 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2010 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2011 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2012 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2013 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2014 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2015 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2016 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2017 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2018 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2019 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2020 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2021 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2022 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2023 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| 2024 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| 2025 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| 2026 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
asset source
Material Symbols arrow_circle_up SVG
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 sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: arrow
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 20360494 records across 27 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: circle arrow
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 6144705 records across 26 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: arrow circle up
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 0 records across 0 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: symbolic
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 20696972 records across 27 active years.
Open source[ TECHNICAL SCORECARD ]
The Metrics Behind The Case.
PCS
0.61
PictoClarity Score
STS
0.55
Semantic Transparency Score
CRI
0.58
Confusion Risk Index
VRS
0.72
Visual Readability Score
PCH
1.00
Perceptual Cohesion
RTS
0.75
Readability Test Score
SRS
0.70
Scale Robustness Score
BRS
0.84
Blur Robustness Score
TCS
0.78
Target Contrast Stability
SDS
0.74
Stroke Durability Score
SFS
0.66
Silhouette Fidelity Score
NDS
1.00
Negative Detail Score
BBS
0.03
Bounding Box Balance
CPS
1.00
Compression Preservation
PDS
1.00
Pixel Density Suitability
ORS
0.65
Orientation Robustness
CAS
0.60
Color Accessibility Score
RRS
0.41
Referent Recognition Score
FAS
0.59
Functional Association Score
SOS
0.12
Semantic Obsolescence Score
CSS
0.01
Cultural Saturation Score
ERS
0.09
Evidence Reliability Score
MTS
0.29
Metaphor Transfer Score
TDS
0.18
Temporal Decay Score
GDS
0.16
Generational Divide Score
CLL
0.40
Convention Learning Load
NTR
0.51
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
SPS
0.33
Symbol Persistence Score
OBS
0.19
Obsolescence Signal
CTS
0.00
Cohort Transfer Slope
[ RECOMMENDED NEXT ACTIONS ]
What Improves This Pictogram.
Action
Conduct representative user testing across diverse user groups to validate comprehension and reduce confusion risks, especially given the moderate semantic and functional convergence and weak cultural resonance.
Action
Maintain visible text labels or tooltips alongside the icon in interfaces until semantic transparency and user familiarity are confirmed through testing.
Action
Enhance contextual cues such as placement and labeling to mitigate confusion with similar directional icons (e.g., arrow circle down, left, right) and clarify intended function (upload vs navigation to top).
Action
Consider design adjustments to improve silhouette fidelity and bounding box balance scores to further strengthen perceptual clarity and distinctiveness.
Action
Monitor evolving cultural recognition and usage trends to update icon design or usage guidelines accordingly, as current cultural saturation and evidence reliability are low.
[ Private testing / Admin invite ]
Request an invite for pictogram clarity screening.
Access stays invite-only during private testing.
Requests feed the admin invite queue.
Useful context helps select early pilots.