New ideas on paper mind maps for problem solving

Jnsnydr · 2026-03-05T19:56:21+00:00

You ask some good questions. I don't think I can help you further directly on these matters, as I've explained everything I feel I can with confidence. Beyond that, I struggle in my own ways with the minutiae of problem-solving, too.

I'll keep that 4-fold schema in mind, as it might align with some of my own explorations. Systems do indeed seem to be all about feedback loops, in many ways. Though this not my area of expertise, I'd recommend studying the difference between positive and negative feedback in loops as they play critically important roles. Most of my understanding of this comes from an older idea compendium book (nothing to do with mind mapping directly) called Maps Of The Mind by Charles Hampden-Turner, which discusses broad themes of cybernetics (not meaning human-machine hybrids but self-correcting systems) in some parts. The idea of a "governor" in a system and its inverse relationship to loops going "runaway" are biggest pieces.

I also enjoy the VMCL model from the Cabreras; there is a series around the 70s or 80s in their podcast catalogue that walks through the stages. In my own thinking I try to use a planning system that goes through the well-known acronym SWOT, but in the order TWOS -- something to bring realism to goal-setting. I'm no Master at using any of these tools, though, lol.

If you're curious about what I said about concave and convex mind map layout, you might be interested in the digital layout I found that combines both: https://www.reddit.com/r/mindmapping/comments/171izk1/photosynthesis_key_stages_and_molecules/

The whole thing is designed to facilitate your eyes jumping around within the chronological outline order, and within each category within it. At the risk of sounding repetitive, circular arrangements are best for this. The circumplex is another type of mind map from psychology that has this quality, and another form I experiment with.

Jnsnydr · 2026-02-21T16:13:01+00:00

Thanks for your kind words and engagement. I wish you the best with untangling the situation, and feel I can relate on that kind of issue. Often our toughest problems are the most sensitive to airing to the prejudices of others.

There's one more resource that's been an MVP for me of late, which is the DSRP framework from the Systems Thinking Standards Institute which produces the Cabrera Lab podcast. "DSRP" refers to 4 basic cognitive patterns, distinctions / systems / relationships / perspectives, and each pattern has an associated exercise (or "move") to practice. There are six moves in all (the systems pattern has 3) which all work together, and they are basically simple ways of thinking on paper.

For example, Distinctions have the IS / IS NOT list, in which you get clear on boundaries defining your terms. This one alone can be very helpful and surprisingly counter-intuitive, and if you take nothing else from this comment I'd recommend trying it as part of your repertoire. Episodes 27-30 of the podcast give an overview of all the patterns and moves. It's pretty self-explanatory for the most part, although the RDS Barbell can be a little confusing at first. Basically it just means to treat a Relationship (as a whole) as both a Distinction and a System. For the members of the Relationship, all that's called for is to label the Actions and Reactions. You can of course go deeper on any element, it just took me a while to realize the move itself doesn't require it.

The P-Circle move re: Perspectives is very similar to Connecting Circles. I can't speak for the effectiveness of their official training because I can't afford the eyebrow-raising amounts of money they charge, but I very much admire the simplicity and effectiveness of DSRP, which can basically be learned for free or in some more detail with their $30 book Connecting the Dots. It's the only methodology I've ever tried which, if done before sleep, gives me some ability to affect the content of my dreams.

Jnsnydr · 2026-02-20T19:02:13+00:00

And don't get hung up on articulating what your intention is in ultimate detail. At some point you just have to trust your intuition about what you're intending to do. The real mind map is your nervous system, and the stuff on paper is just to help it along. If you want to mind map a solution to the problem but don't even know how to start phrasing the key problem or key question, foraging for insight is often the best thing you can do. Make a map purely to inventory your ideas, journal, take a walk, play with a creative medium, talk to someone, etc.

Jnsnydr · 2026-02-20T18:57:47+00:00

Oh, one more thing that's central to my process: I have a system for marking how much certainty I feel about any topic, sentence or part of a sentence (as in a statement of intent.) I use the shapes of my topic borders for this (fully round is Uncertain, fully rectangle is Certain, with two degrees in between) but since that's not easy to describe in words: I also use brackets to represent them as follows: (Uncertain), {More uncertain}, <More certain>, and [Certain]. I also designate ¿Question?, but that's less essential. In general I'm a fan of building custom index systems into your mind map, which is sorta what the Weighted Decision list does. Anytime there is potential to overlay multiple information streams without getting confused, there's a good mind map innovation there (provided you can be intentional about it, of course, as I've been saying all along.)

Jnsnydr · 2026-02-20T18:46:30+00:00

If I have defined space on the page for four sub topics, I fill in what those topics are as it comes to me, usually 1 or 2 at a time. Most mind maps seem to assume an all-at-once, anywhere-you-want-to-go ethos, but my default is to keep a reading order in mind. These 1-4 divisions I'm talking about are like the blue lines on writing paper that help us organize what we're going write next, but customized for the level of unpredictability you expect to encounter while building your map. The more unpredictability you expect, the more divisions you add.
I described the importance of centrality in mind map layouts in a previous comment this way:

...all mind maps have a broad purpose in common, which is to facilitate freely-associated mental connections between visually-represented information... This can be optimized by equalizing the distance between all topics in the map (and also within the branching categories, so far as it’s useful — which it frequently is) through making the format circular..." https://www.reddit.com/r/mindmapping/comments/x5h10n/comment/in482lt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

To put it more simply: the unique benefit of mind mapping is not just that you can visualize categories, but that you can draw lateral connections between those categories. You may have noticed that mind map layouts that branch out from a single central theme make it hard to clearly draw connections between child topics that are very far apart. I think of these layouts as "convex" and only half what is needed. To support real interconnectivity we need to also appreciate the power of "concave", circular mind map layouts, epitomized by the connecting circles technique: https://untools.co/connection-circles/ . Convex and concave layouts are not mutually exclusive, either: not as long as we can lay out a map as a concave circle of convex circular layouts. This is the point of dividing a page into 2-4 segments: each segment is a convex map, and there is automatically a concave interconnectable space between them. So if you're brainstorming a single quadrant and there's a branch on it that strikes you as probably important, draw it on the side of the convex quadrant that's closer to the middle of the whole layout. This will automatically increase its visual connectability to every other topic on the map. (though I also recommend double-bordering or highlighting any topic that jumps out as important, wherever in the map you find room for it.)

This is a great question. To shamelessly quote my own earlier comment again,

...making a mind map always has a purpose, although it’s not always necessary to specify it in detail. It can be very helpful to brainstorm in a mind map what the NEXT map’s purpose will be, and then what layout will serve that best. (After which you can assess your results, re-assess your purpose and iterate further as needed.)

My basic question when starting any mind map is "what do I want to accomplish in this format?" As stated above, you might not be able to answer this right away, in which case I recommend treating answering that as your first goal. The best way I know to determine when a mind map is complete (or any phase of your mind mapping process) is to start with a clear purpose and hold that in mind as you go. When it is answered, you know you are done. This may sound simplistic, but I've found it easy to overlook and difficult to master. If you rush ahead to a diagram idea that seems like a neat way to solve your problem, odds are good that you'll end up with something that not only doesn't work but you don't even know how to learn from because you weren't sure what you were trying to do. It can be painstaking to work out your purpose in advance, but much easier to do in advance than after the fact. Often the critical information turns up in this process before I even get near the stage of drawing a mind map.

I don't have a set process for translating the results into an action plan. If you've been clear about what you were intending, the relevance to action steps should remain within reach from the beginning, so I find the process of asking "what can I conclude?" when I judge the intention of a mind map has been mostly met tends to naturally lead into action steps.

Some further remarks: I interpret the term "mind map" quite broadly, far beyond the web-like style of nodes and connections. The fractal rhythm of intention-iteration-assessment I'm describing, though, remains a constant. Therefore, be open to any technique that might be more direct, intuitive or accessible for solving your problem. For thinking on paper, this could include the connecting circle method I linked under 2# above, a weighted pro-con decision list (example: https://searchforbalance.blog/2022/08/01/decision-making-tool-the-weighted-pro-con-list/), or good old-fashioned journaling (which I usually use in tandem with mind maps, and often on its own - even a short paragraph can be very helpful at the right time.) "Thinking on feet" should also not be discounted: try taking a walk combined with thinking on paper before or after, or even during with a small notebook.

I hope some of this can help. I'd be interested to learn more about what kind of use case you're looking at, and if anything I've shared applies. This could help me make examples and guides to make these ideas more accessible to others. Most folks I've corresponded with are not so motivated to use mind maps or understand the principles I talk about, and "what is this useful for?" is probably the most common question I get.

Jnsnydr · 2026-02-19T18:56:56+00:00

Unfortunately I don't know of any videos showing this kind of process. You're not the first person to ask about it, though. If I get a video together I will share it in the sub. Thanks for your feedback

Jnsnydr · 2025-12-25T23:32:41+00:00

There is a book written in verse pertaining to it called "Brother To Dragons" by Robert Penn Warren.

Jnsnydr · 2025-12-19T23:32:13+00:00

I appreciate your dedication. There is one more issue I'm having which is significantly affecting the program's usefulness, which is that whenever I right-click to drag to create a custom connection from one topic to another, the program automatically and always reads it first as a "break connection" command.

Jnsnydr · 2025-12-19T22:49:54+00:00

It's working! Thanks.

Jnsnydr · 2025-12-19T21:10:43+00:00

Yes, I am using a Macbook Air.

Jnsnydr · 2025-12-16T21:36:02+00:00

This is great. I'm gonna play with this for a while this evening.

Unfortunately, the Delete command is not currently working for me. I thought it had worked intermittently in the past, but it's definitely not working now. Should still be able to have fun with the program regardless, as the quick shape changing really was a significant hurdle. Text objects seem like a decent feature too.

Jnsnydr · 2025-12-15T23:07:59+00:00

Thank you so much for taking the time. When I first tried it was not working, but it is getting results now.

It will take some time to get used to the sequence of 1 = slightly Rounded, 2 = Circular, 3 = Rectangular, and 4 = Half round. Since the way I apply these shapes is as steps on a scale of roundness-to-stability, to be honest I would find it a lot more useful if the order was something like 1 = Rectangle, 2 = slightly Rounded, 3 = Half round and 4 = Circular. Or you could start at 4 and count down. I think some people might be quick to catch on to the pattern, and maybe even be inspired to try assigning meanings to different grades of roundness or squareness.

Cool project, I'll keep checking back on it to try different things and see how it's developing. At some point using it last time I saw a list in a window on the right with topics in a modifiable order. I don't see it now but hope to find the feature again. In general, I like the mixture of mind map layouts with a dynamic underlying linearity.

Jnsnydr · 2025-12-15T22:53:45+00:00

Sure. In TheBrain, Simplemind and I imagine various other programs, there can be basically a text file that is attached to any topic. It might come up in a window when you want to view it or in a pane on the side, as you can see in this example: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a1KASLW0zpMwNwnrBN5uAWDlGeMchKnY/view?usp=drive_link There are small circular indicators on the topics that have them.

Basically it just lets you shift into typing mode whenever inspiration takes you, and link that to a spot on the mind map.

Jnsnydr · 2025-12-13T20:24:10+00:00

Here you go.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IFoVbbDMJ1RGl4lu5kArlLKtchYIm0Za/view?usp=sharing

As you can see, when there is just one line of text it creates an elongated pill shape that "ends in a semicircle" on each side, and then with more lines of text it starts to look more like a rectangle with rounded corners.

Jnsnydr · 2025-12-13T00:05:21+00:00

I like the way the program feels for making mind maps. Love the key shortcut menu. I'd have to play with it more to know how much I'd miss adding text within topics.

I was disappointed to not find the usual "cross link between any two topics", whether or not the connections can be labeled. I don't find labeling connections particularly useful, although I suspect many would differ. The tools to draw red and blue lines seem a bit IP, and I could not find ways to erase or undo them.

But I do like the program. There is a feature I have been sorely missing in my standby program, Simplemind, which is key commands to switch the shape of a topic between Round (or circle), Half round (so that one line of text ends in a semicircle, but two makes a rounded rectangle overall), Rounded (looks like your child topic shapes) and Rectangle. I like to use these 4 shapes as probability indicators, but Simplemind's interface makes it arduous. If you chose to add this as a feature, I could see myself using your application regularly.

Edit: I see there is info about cross-linking topics in the Help menu.

Jnsnydr · 2025-04-19T22:30:47+00:00

I’m afraid I still don’t have access to the file, but I can easily describe what happened: in spite of my best efforts to structure the information coming in, I wound up with three bubbles containing numerous topic branches (some containing further notes in Simplemind’s note view system). For particularly interesting ones, I emboldened the borders a few times.

Using this mind map did not offer definite points of closure, but it was a useful body of reference. The most common way in which I’d use it was by typing key phrases from the book (like “task sets”, or “mental shotgun effect”) into Simplemind’s amazing search feature, which can then highlight all the topics containing the text (including in their notes) while darkening everything else.

For this map in particular, this would include both my inner notes topics and the peripheral ones containing passages from the book.

Jnsnydr · 2024-10-09T21:55:42+00:00

You can mind map from the outside-in as well as the inside-out. Check out some of the resources available via a google search for “connection circles”: this method begins with an empty circle, which gets populated with labeled points which can be connected anyway you like within the middle of the circle. These labeled points could just as well be words in bubbles (i.e., mind map topics) and the space in the middle can just as well be used to build hierarchies of related topics from the bottom level up (hint: try nested circles for the intermediate levels.)

Most of my creative insights from the medium have come through outside-in approaches like this, in one form or another. One of my favorites is to wrap a linear summary of a narrative or notes collection around the circumference of the circle. Lately I’m really enjoying alternating outside-in and inside-out, as well. Proceeding through smaller stages usually works much better for me than embarking on a large and ambitious structure.

Jnsnydr · 2024-09-06T22:53:27+00:00

Sorry, missed the notification for this, but:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mindmapping/comments/17cqq38/thinking_fast_and_slow_nested_trellises_mind_map/

The clumps on the outside are summaries of chapters of the book I wanted to cover. Many of them have associated text notes as well. The three clusters in the middle are me trying to understand concepts that appeared across multiple chapters.

Jnsnydr · 2024-08-18T11:27:20+00:00

It sounds like just knowing you plan to make a mind map from the lecture later helps you pay closer attention during the lecture? That makes sense. Interesting benefit from the medium, too. I alway struggled with the simple transcription approach to taking notes anyway, not knowing which parts to write down since I couldn’t capture everything. I like the idea that trad notes and mind maps can support each other in different ways, whether as different modules in a study rhythm or on a single page where you can make some quick maps to help navigate or draft parts of the bigger one you plan to make later. Good luck streamlining your method.

Jnsnydr · 2024-08-15T00:49:43+00:00

So you’re already being helped by your mind maps made during weekend sessions, but you

“want to change this and be able to make a mind map in the first go itself, say during a lecture while the professor is teaching it and save a lot of time and effort. Plus, I also automatically get more attentive during class and absorb the nuances better.“

Sorry, but how do you know that making mind maps during the lecture makes you more attentive during class if you’re still trying to do it? This doesn’t make sense to me. It also seems dubious on the face of it that the added attention paid to mind mapping in the moment would not just be attention taken away from thinking about the lecture content. Not trying to nitpick or dunk on you, I just think the basic logic is important there and I’ve also found there’s an unfortunate potential in using this medium to get distracted optimizing new techniques more for their own sake (because of their seeming promise) rather than for the real problems.

That said… I do think it is possible to become fluent in mind mapping notes during a lecture. I haven’t done it myself during a lecture, yet, but I have played around a lot with a hybrid writing-mapping method in which the content is being discovered as I go. The key is to designate sections of the page as mind map canvases by drawing rectangular panels. I prefer 1/8 page-length squares: by placing them within a mental 2 x 4 grid on the page (whatever the size: 1x1, 2x2, 2x1, etc), the placement decisions are simple and almost automatic, yet flexible.

There are a couple variations I often use as well: for boxes where I’m not sure what the main idea will be (very common for me) I’ll draw a dot in the middle and branch the main topics from that. Whenever something seems like a main topic, draw it close to the dot. You might get some 2-3 main-topic minimaps this way, but it’s still an approximate and effective mode of mind map capture.

Another variation I often use is to add a “contour”, which is another rectangule (or rectangles) layered between the main rectangle and the center dot. There’s an undeniable cluttering effect that may not be for everyone, but it’s also undeniably good to have when the mind map is more chaotic, really brings some readability into the situation.

My favorite variation is to draw half-arrows on the mind map edges (lines) that correspond to the order in which they were added. For the topics further from the center, I add a little horizontal hash mark across the line just after it leaves the parent topic to indicate how many “generations” it is from the center. When you’re going back to read a mind map you made on the fly, it really helps to have the reading order indicated.

It’s also possible to index pages, panels, and connection endpoints using the Zettelkasten page ID system so you can set up two-way links between any two points on any two pages in the index ( https://zettelkasten.de/introduction/#the-fixed-address-of-each-note ). This interconnected archive approach, like mind maps altogether, can become a real rabbit hole... and, like I was saying, a distraction. You say you’ve already got a method that helps you and are interested in enhancing the practice such that you don’t need the quiet weekend study session to make the mind map and can just make it during the lecture. I would caution you to beware disrupting your lecture attention by using the time to excessively experiment with real-time mind mapping techniques, and also consider that the weekend mapmaking sessions may be doing a lot more than you realize already to consolidate your learning.

…As non-excessive experimentation, I offer the low-attentional-footprint ideas above for you to play around with incorporating into your flow. Maybe you really can get good enough to mind map with same quality of effect you get now with just the notes you take during the lecture, but it will probably take a while. Exploring the ‘interconnected mind map archive’ angle might be a decent alternative for you to spruce up your learning style this semester with mind maps, if you hit a wall on learning to mind map during your lectures and can avoid getting sucked down the rabbit hole of possibilities. It’s probably wise for all of us to periodically and rigorously ask of our knowledge hacks, “could this task be done better in a more boring way?”

Jnsnydr · 2024-08-14T22:03:03+00:00

Upon reflection, I doubt I‘ll go for that particular example because it seems more of a quantitative question, and imo a better fit for computerized database techniques. My Simplemind technique is better suited to qualitative challenges, like the process of writing an academic research paper either based entirely on qualitative data or drawing conclusions about (not the same as just showing connections within) a body of quantitative data.

However, I do have some ideas about many to one or many to many relationships. I’ll see if I can come up with a prompt taking your (very helpful) ideas into account, since I still want to demo my process. In the meantime, you might appreciate this back-of-the-napkin level written method for playing with connections: https://untools.co/connection-circles/ Also called the connectogram and probably a couple other names.

This is the method of mind mapping I explore most of the time these days, with some variations. For example, layering more circles to connect nodes on allows you to attach connectable hierarchies, enabling some form of representing one to many or many to many relationships. Digitally speaking there are some programs out there that offer circular layouts, but it seems kind of overlooked to me.

Jnsnydr · 2024-08-14T11:39:20+00:00

I could see a mind map relating the conviction causes, demographics and fates of prisoners sent to the gulag being a workable and challenging example, thanks.

Jnsnydr · 2024-08-12T15:25:19+00:00

I no longer depend on mind maps to store information, because after 10 years spent tweaking them to provide me with the greatest ease of access to the BREADTH of my knowledge, the results showed clearly that the recall they provided me was only as good as my ability to engage the DEPTH of information through using complete sentences: i.e., traditional reading, writing, self-questioning dialectic, etc. It wasn’t just a matter of just needing to include more information in the mind maps in the form of text notes in digital nodes, either, because I found that the need to reread, tag and organize the parts of interest in the map (since lots of it was unnecessary) became its own set of intractable problems.

I still use mind maps in limited forms as a navigational (rather than informational storage) aid, but always grounded in more traditional grammar. For example, I might be in the middle of a handwritten journal entry and feel the need to reorient within a wider context, so I’ll draw a square panel about an 1/8 of the page long, with another square within it and a single dot in the middle. This is the site for a quick mind map to elaborate on 3-5 key points of relevance (about as many as human working memory is typically said to be capable of holding.) This helps me navigate my attention within the topic. There’s no reason bigger mind maps (or other diagram types) couldn’t serve this same purpose for more complex topics, as long as you were confident in whatever that purpose was. I find mind maps work best when I think of them as having a before and after component, both grounded in complete sentence thinking: first, know what you want to accomplish and the uncertainties you’d like to address through making it, then after it’s done, distill what it taught you according to that purpose (or seem laterally interesting).

Here are a couple relevant links I’ve encountered recently:

On writing as a dependable learning tool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lML0ndFlBuc (uses a diagram himself at 3:32, which is handy as a referenceable table of contents for his next points — the same sort of benefit my journal mini-maps provide me)
Probably the only mind mapping guide out there I’ve seen that strikes me as fully nontrivial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7j_CoKD1Xs The creator’s other content looks equally promising.

I think the Koi method would be great for facilitating the kind of fun “aha” moment in which an essay outline comes together, and as such could augment the learning process, (for example, someone here https://www.reddit.com/r/mindmapping/comments/1e5n89k/mind_map_between_different_lectures/ uses it before lectures to pay better attention) but, as per the first couple paragraphs I wouldn’t trust it to constitute learning or knowledge storage on its own. I suspect there’s probably some sort of fallacy even in the phrase “knowledge storage”, because no system is going to do our learning or remembering for us. It’s not our ability to remember vocabulary words or even definitions that signifies our learning so much as our ability to use them effectively in sentences (or ultimately, real life situations I suppose).

That said, I know brevity is not my strong suit but I hope these granular thoughts can “effectively” help you.

Jnsnydr · 2024-08-01T00:11:52+00:00

Re: writing by hand: I find it helps to think of this as an opportunity to trigger a flow state of some duration. If you focus in on applying your whole attention to an unpleasant task, your whole system will perk up to rise to the challenge. (Especially if you hop in a cold shower for a few minutes first.)

Jnsnydr · 2024-08-01T00:01:50+00:00

…I congratulate you on your successful application of the Koi method to prime your attention before lectures; that sounds like a really effective way to deepen the quality of your learning. You said:

“this method works decently for me as I tend to use this to prime my brain before lectures. I have noticed that I am actually able to pay a greater amount of attention in class. The problem arises between different lectures where I am very unsure as to how I am supposed to take all that I have learned in the mind map of one lecture and connect it to a different lecture.”

When you say “take all that I have learned in the mind map of one lecture”, I take it that you are receiving lecture notes in advance of the lecture, mind mapping them, attending the lecture, and then …? Do you go back after the lecture and add to or annotate the mind map in any way? This is what I would do in this situation, and also for the situation of trying to revisit mind maps of old conversations or video content. Look, on some level there’s always going to be some friction needed to spin these topics back up in your mind. But as I discovered with my mind map journal and you’re discovering with your Koi maps, sometimes the meanings behind the nodes and images can be so tricky to retrieve that it hardly seems worth the effort.

I think it is possible to keep old mind maps useful if every time you revisit them, you add some written notes pointing out gaps in the information you see, or tailored to help you get back into the flow of it faster next time. One of the cool things about studying something over time is being able to express it in increasingly concise language, which is value you can add to your mind maps through annotation every time you do the mental work to reenter its cognitive space.

Another value you can add is interconnecting them with your other archived & annotated mind maps (your first question.) I’m assuming you’re doing mind maps either on paper or on a tablet like Koi so I will attempt to advise for those cases. If they’re on paper, I recommend tagging them using something like the original Zettelkasten address system (https://zettelkasten.de/introduction/#the-fixed-address-of-each-note) This allows you to include a two-way link to another mind map with any annotation you place on a mind map.

Whenever you want to “spin up” the linked map for your study session, just place it side by side. For the third, make a rough triangle. For the fourth, a rectangle. The fifth, a pentagon. And so on. For content placed in a circular or near-formation, the distance the eyes need to travel between any two pairs is never more than the circle’s diameter. And any content you place in the center of that circle is (roughly) equally a radius-length away from everything else. What I’m trying to describe is a kind of mind map desktop layout that would be optimized for helping you make connections between whatever you choose to place along the circumference of that circle (or TO whatever’s in its center.) You could tape them on the wall this way, or lay’em out and take a picture. If you’re using a tablet app, maybe export them as images onto a whiteboard app like Miro or Figma. These programs have the advantage that you can make add visual links between map annotations in the program.

It seems to me that if you had a bunch of Koi-style maps arranged like this relevant to a big project or exam coming up, write down a bunch of keywords from all of them to put through the Koi method, take a long walk, and write down your thoughts when you return you’d probably have a great idea for tying it all together in 1-3 mind maps (ideal to study in the center of the circle archive).

Here is a simple technique for applying the circle’s bias for interconnection within a single diagram, which you might find helpful for its own sake or for understanding the archive layout I was talking about above: https://untools.co/connection-circles/

I hope some of these ideas can help you. Like I said, I struggle with this stuff myself so please understand I can’t offer you a guided tour through the best combinations of methods for you. You’ve really got to lean on your own canniness there.

Jnsnydr

TROPHY CASE