[ PICTOGRAM CASE HISTORY ]
Material Symbols Open Run Icon (Outlined). Needs intervention.
Visible referent: open run. Intended message: The icon must communicate Open Run in a digital interface.. The report separates observed asset evidence, submitted context, and public evidence signals.
0.62
PCS
0.40
CLL
0.48
NTR
[ FEATURED PICTOGRAM ]
pictoclarity / material-symbols-open-run-outlined
Output - Material Symbols Open Run Icon (Outlined)
Assessing the communicative effectiveness of the Open Run icon
This reviewed catalog report estimates clarity for Open Run in default interface contexts. Scores are screening estimates and do not replace user testing.
0.62
PCS
PictoClarity Score
0.40
CLL
Convention Learning Load
0.48
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 Open Run icon in the outlined style.
02
Primary Finding
Primary referent: open run.
03
Metric Reading
Implied function: The icon must communicate Open Run in a digital interface..
04
Public Recommendation
Conduct representative user testing across diverse user groups to validate semantic transparency and functional clarity before widespread deployment.
[ EVIDENCE SCREENING ]
What The Estimate Surfaces.
Semantic Transparency Score
Input
Expected
Estimated
0.53
Confusion Risk Index
Input
Possible
Estimated
0.54
Readability Test Score
Input
Visual
Estimated
0.82
PictoClarity Score
Input
Estimated
Estimated
0.62
Needs intervention 0.62
The pictogram carries meaningful clarity risk. The estimate applies to this pictogram, this meaning, and this public context.
Last Reviewed
Jun 24, 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
0.67
Perceptual
0.80
Semantic
0.53
Functional
0.57
Cultural
0.31
Temporal
0.57
Neurocognitive
0.59
Context Independence
0.58
Collective Resonance
0.24
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 | 0.80 | How strongly visual form survives size, blur, contrast, and detail loss. |
| Semantic Convergence | 0.53 | How strongly extracted meaning converges on one interpretation. |
| Functional Convergence | 0.57 | How strongly the symbol maps to the intended function. |
| Cultural Convergence | 0.31 | How strongly recognition holds across cultural evidence and assumptions. |
| Temporal Convergence | 0.57 | How strongly meaning persists over time without semantic decay. |
| Neurocognitive Convergence | 0.59 | 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 | 0.24 | How strongly public evidence supports shared recognition and persistence. |
Evidence Notes.
8 Findings Published
Evidence
Primary referent: open run.
Evidence
Implied function: The icon must communicate Open Run in a digital interface..
Evidence
Metaphor type: functional.
Evidence
The icon visually represents four outward-pointing arrows arranged symmetrically, aligning with the intended 'Open Run' referent and functional meaning as a symbolic control in digital interfaces.
Evidence
Visual quality is strong with high perceptual convergence (0.80), indicating good resilience to size, blur, and contrast changes, supporting usability across platforms.
Evidence
Semantic convergence (0.53) and functional convergence (0.57) are moderate, suggesting some ambiguity in interpretation and mapping to the intended function without additional context.
Evidence
Cultural convergence is low (0.31), reflecting limited shared recognition and cultural saturation of this symbol as 'Open Run' across diverse user groups.
Evidence
Temporal convergence (0.57) and neurocognitive convergence (0.59) indicate moderate persistence of meaning over time and reasonable alignment with pictogram reading principles, but some cognitive load remains due to learned conventions (CLL=0.4) and neurocognitive transfer risk (NTR=0.48).
[ 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 | 0.71 | 0.75 |
| 1997 | 0.28 | 0.74 |
| 1998 | 0.75 | 0.76 |
| 1999 | 0.71 | 0.74 |
| 2000 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| 2001 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| 2002 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2003 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2004 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2005 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| 2006 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 2007 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2008 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2009 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
| 2010 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
| 2011 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| 2012 | 0.72 | 0.75 |
| 2013 | 0.78 | 0.75 |
| 2014 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2015 | 0.71 | 0.75 |
| 2016 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2017 | 0.75 | 0.76 |
| 2018 | 0.71 | 0.75 |
| 2019 | 0.71 | 0.75 |
| 2020 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| 2021 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| 2022 | 0.75 | 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 open_run 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: of multi arrow directional
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 0 records across 0 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: of multi arrow
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 0 records across 0 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: multi arrow directional
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 0 records across 0 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: of outward pointing arrows in
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 0 records across 0 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: of outward pointing
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 11608022 records across 26 active years.
Open sourcehistorical evidence
Google Books Ngram annual buckets: in ui controls
Google Books Ngram / 1996-2026
Annual extraction returned 0 records across 0 active years.
Open source[ TECHNICAL SCORECARD ]
The Metrics Behind The Case.
PCS
0.62
PictoClarity Score
STS
0.53
Semantic Transparency Score
CRI
0.54
Confusion Risk Index
VRS
0.79
Visual Readability Score
PCH
1.00
Perceptual Cohesion
RTS
0.82
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
0.84
Silhouette Fidelity Score
NDS
1.00
Negative Detail Score
BBS
0.54
Bounding Box Balance
CPS
1.00
Compression Preservation
PDS
1.00
Pixel Density Suitability
ORS
0.84
Orientation Robustness
CAS
0.60
Color Accessibility Score
RRS
0.37
Referent Recognition Score
FAS
0.55
Functional Association Score
SOS
0.12
Semantic Obsolescence Score
CSS
0.01
Cultural Saturation Score
ERS
0.09
Evidence Reliability Score
MTS
0.27
Metaphor Transfer Score
TDS
0.18
Temporal Decay Score
GDS
0.17
Generational Divide Score
CLL
0.40
Convention Learning Load
NTR
0.48
Neurocognitive Transfer Risk
SPS
0.31
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 semantic transparency and functional clarity before widespread deployment.
Action
Maintain visible text labels or clear tooltips alongside the icon until semantic transparency and user comprehension are empirically confirmed.
Action
Enhance contextual cues in the interface (e.g., placement, grouping, labeling) to reduce confusion with similar multi-arrow icons and improve functional mapping.
Action
Consider design refinements to increase cultural recognition and reduce learned convention load, possibly by integrating more explicit metaphors or combining with textual hints.
Action
Monitor usage and feedback over time to detect any semantic obsolescence or generational comprehension divides, adapting the icon or support materials accordingly.
[ 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.