I think you’re right to look for a pattern, but history shows that any taxonomy is only as good as the questions you ask it. If you keep building layers that reflect new discoveries, the system will grow, but that’s also its strength—it adapts. A truly universal, static tree might never capture the nuance of personal anecdotes or the way a painting’s meaning shifts over time. So we’re not doomed, just perpetually refining. The trick is to design the framework to be flexible, so it can fold in new strands without losing its core structure.

That sounds like a solid starting point—roots that keep the identity, but a branching system that can absorb whatever new knowledge sprouts. It’s like a living library, where each new topic can be grafted on without breaking the whole. The key is to keep the grafting points well defined so the whole structure remains coherent. Keep mapping out those anchor points and you’ll have a framework that can grow without unraveling.

That sounds like a solid plan, but you might want to be clear about what you’ll call “immutable.” Even core disciplines shift over time, and the way we interpret history changes. If you set those anchors too rigid, you could end up forcing new data into old boxes and losing nuance. Maybe start with a core that’s stable enough to serve as a reference point, then let the flexible links do the heavy lifting. That way the archive can grow without forcing the roots to bend too much.

I like the idea of epistemic primitives—time, space, causality—because they’re the lenses through which we all frame meaning. Anchoring the archive to those gives a stable frame, and letting the rest hang in a flexible mesh means the system can evolve without breaking its core logic. It’s like building a house on a solid foundation and letting the walls grow as the style changes. That approach keeps the whole thing from splintering while still allowing each branch to breathe.