Concept Mapping

When a domain is described in prose or sketched as a diagram, the relationships between its concepts stay vague: a line is drawn between two boxes, or two ideas are called "related", and how they actually relate is never specified. Concept mapping refuses the unlabeled link. It builds a non-hierarchical semantic network in which every connection is a directed, labeled linking phrase, so each node-link-node triple reads as an explicit proposition ("free tier - increases - signup volume"), and clusters are joined by cross-links that connect concepts across different parts of the map. The load-bearing move is forcing every relationship to be named, which externalizes how the domain interrelates and makes gaps, missing links, and false propositions visible. The output is a concept map plus a list of surfaced gaps. It externalizes and inspects how concepts relate; it does not claim to improve learning, retention, or decisions.

When to Use

• A domain has many interrelated concepts and the goal is to make how they relate explicit and inspectable.
• You suspect hidden gaps or misconceptions in how a space is understood and want them surfaced as checkable propositions.
• Integration across sub-areas matters, so the cross-links between clusters carry the value (for example linking a pricing concept to a support-cost concept).

When NOT to Use

• To evaluate whether one argument or recommendation is sound - use argument-mapping. Both produce "maps" and this is the easiest confusion: argument mapping has a claim, reasons, co-premises, and objections and judges soundness; a concept map is a network of propositions and judges nothing.
• To decompose one big question top-down into MECE parts - use issue-tree. A concept map is a non-hierarchical network, not a decomposition tree, and does not aim for mutual exclusivity.
• To cluster many raw notes bottom-up with no named relationships - use affinity-mapping (the KJ method). Affinity mapping groups items into themes and deliberately does not name the relationship between them; if you only need themes, not propositions, use it.
• To move a problem down fixed event / pattern / structure / mental-model levels - use iceberg-model. The iceberg has prescribed causal levels; a concept map has none.
• If you drop the labeled-link / proposition constraint, you are doing free-association mind-mapping with unlabeled branches (the Buzan method), which this library excludes (X-tier; Farrand 2002). The named-relationship discipline is the skill; without it this collapses into the excluded method.

Instructions