← sagar hugar

Colophon

This site keeps its own decision log, built on the same structure Lore imposes on a team's reasoning, applied to itself. Every design decision below is recorded with the assumption it rests on, how confident I was, and the risks I named at the time. If one of these assumptions breaks, this page is where you'll see it first.

built with Claude Code · Next.js · deployed on Vercel

decision

Light mode only, no dark theme, no toggle

assumption: the belief that made me confident

Warm paper reads as editorial confidence; dark mode reads as dev-tool default, and a toggle is a decision pushed onto the visitor

confidence at the time
70% · high
risks I named
  • Developers skimming at night may find it bright
  • If tastes shift, every screenshot of the site dates it
reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open

decision

Present the career as a reasoning graph, not a timeline or an About page

assumption: the belief that made me confident

Showing decisions and the assumptions they rested on proves more than narrating roles. Structure is the argument

confidence at the time
45% · medium
risks I named
  • Could read as a gimmick if the records aren't genuinely load-bearing
  • Graphs are harder to skim than lists
how I'd know it worked

A founder or hiring manager mentions the site unprompted

reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open

decision

2.5D depth instead of full 3D navigation

assumption: the belief that made me confident

Orbit controls fight usability. Depth should be felt, not steered

confidence at the time
95% · very high
risks I named

none named

reality: what actually happened

Kept the alive, dimensional feel at zero navigation cost; reduced-motion and mobile visitors get a timeline instead

decision

Case studies are structured decision records, not case-study prose

assumption: the belief that made me confident

The record format (assumption, confidence, risks, success criteria, outcome) makes claims falsifiable, which is exactly what a claims-document portfolio can't do

confidence at the time
70% · high
risks I named
  • Structure could feel cold without editorial prose around it
reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open

decision

Build the site with Claude Code, and say so

assumption: the belief that made me confident

For AI-builder audiences, how you build is itself a credential. Hiding the tooling would be hiding evidence

confidence at the time
95% · very high
risks I named
  • Some readers still discount AI-assisted work
reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open

decision

Serif prose with monospace record labels

assumption: the belief that made me confident

The tension between editorial warmth and systematic structure is the brand: journalism roots on the surface, reasoning layer underneath

confidence at the time
70% · high
risks I named

none named

reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open

decision

All content is schema-validated data; the UI is a pure renderer

assumption: the belief that made me confident

Adding a project must never require touching UI code. A portfolio that's expensive to update is a portfolio that rots

confidence at the time
95% · very high
risks I named

none named

how I'd know it worked

A new project ships end-to-end by editing only the content directory

reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open

decision

Make the graph the hero: 60% graph, 40% temporal panel that narrates whatever you click

assumption: the belief that made me confident

If the graph is genuinely the site's argument, hiding it below a text hero undercuts the claim; visitors explore before they read

confidence at the time
45% · medium
risks I named
  • A canvas as the first paint is riskier than text for slow connections
  • Visitors who don't click see less narrative
how I'd know it worked

Node clicks per session beat scroll-past rate; the fallback stack keeps mobile bounce unchanged

reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open

decision

The agent view is dark, the one exception to light-mode-only

assumption: the belief that made me confident

The light-only rule exists for human readers; a machine-readable console signals its different audience best by breaking the palette deliberately

confidence at the time
70% · high
risks I named
  • An exception weakens the original rule's clarity
  • Two palettes to keep coherent instead of one
reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open

decision

Removed search entirely. Filters and the map replace it

assumption: the belief that made me confident

On a graph of ~20 nodes, search adds a text-input detour to things the eye can already find; grouping chips and hover connections do the same job with less interface

confidence at the time
70% · high
risks I named
  • Visitors trained to expect a search box may briefly look for one
reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open

decision

No About page

assumption: the belief that made me confident

The reasoning graph answers 'who is this person' better than a bio paragraph could, and the absence forces the graph to carry that weight

confidence at the time
45% · medium
risks I named
  • Visitors who expect a conventional About may look for it
reality: what actually happened

not yet evaluated, this one is still open