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.