representational staging  ^{[active draft]  #tbc}

‘useful but not correct’ is fine, as long as we remember each is a distinct special-domain, with equally distinct respective general-domain (or substrate); and as such, we ought not demand correct be framed in terms of useful. the general-domain, or substrate, is necessarily different

Useful is totally fine for the first stage of conceptual or phenomenal exploration of {map; territory} – to iterate toward extrinsic compositional alignment, independently of final phenomenal substrate (see: on phenomenal substrate)

It is OK if the first result of mapping phenomenal territory is some intractable or irreducible form, in the same way it is OK that the formal-lifecycle of {software; physical invention; writing; art; etc} all explicitly include initial-prototype forms – proof-of-concepts – useful but not correct examples ¹.

What science forgets of some scientific explanations (at times), is that to get from useful but not correct prototype to some production worthy implementation, we might need to almost entirely reimagine the conceptually-proven-useful-thing, within the fundamental constraints of a ‘production worthy substrate’ – a process dependant upon reduction, and recomposition – and at times elimination of substrate-incompatible detail or complexity from the original form (writings: kill your darlings)

There is something that it is for :

1. A map to conform with both the territory it represents, and the territory of it’s respective substrate
2. For the essence of {software; physical invention; writing; art; etc} to conform with both the intended purpose and respective production substrate

to think of phenomena in terms of constituents and priors, illuminates the phenomenal substrate constraints which instruct finite legal form ²

When it comes to thinking about scientific/ conceptual mapping of territory, any inability to reimagine ideas in terms of priors/ substrate, is a good sign that key elements of the idea are contrived and redundant ³.