Add promo/, and the first piece: the foundation nobody shared

[peopleworks]

A promo/ folder, and the first piece in it: six real XAF applications by one author share 16 class names and 60 property names, and zero base classes.

The same vocabulary every time. The structure rebuilt from XPO primitives every time.

Built from measurements, not from claims

Every number was read by running xaflogic wiki over the six module directories, on 2026-08-28:

Application	Entities	Controllers	Actions	DevExpress	Framework
pwLegalOffice	231	78	66	23.2	net7.0
PeopleWorksCopilotBackOffice	56	6	9	25.2	net9.0
pwControlVisita	54	6	6	25.2	net481
PWPresupuesto	35	14	11	26.1	net48
ComisionSOS	19	7	7	25.1	net9.0
XafAiExtensionsDataAnalysis	10	1	0	25.2	net9.0

The re-measure is the reason the generator exists. The repository's own notes recorded 405 / 111 / 98; the real figures are 405 / 112 / 99. A controller and an action drifted within four days, unnoticed, because they were recalled rather than read. build-foundation.py keeps them in one table and recomputes every coordinate from it, so refreshing the piece is editing six rows.

The drawing

The base class is a foundation, so the piece is an engineer's elevation sheet that can measure its absence. Elevation heights are proportional at a computed 2.2511 px per entity — stated in the title block, beside the six paths the numbers came from, so a reader can check the claim rather than trust it. Windows, parapets and earth hatching are drafting detail; none of them is data wearing a costume.

Made with the Epic Infographics skill (MIT). Its preflight loads the page headless, measures real glyph geometry and refuses to render on a collision — it ran clean before every render here.

Two review loops were needed, and both are worth recording. The first draft failed the skill's own squint test: cover the text and it was hatched bars on graph paper, a layout that would hold any dataset unchanged. The second still had the footings covering the earth, so the foundations did not read as foundations. Neither would have been caught by looking at the code.

Two constraints this piece does not meet

Recorded in promo/README.md rather than discovered after posting.

1. Safe band. docs/Blog/video/build-shorts.py reserves SAFE_TOP, SAFE_BOTTOM = 300, 400 because TikTok, Reels and Shorts draw their own interface over the top and bottom of a vertical frame. This piece puts its title near the top edge and its title block near the bottom, so posting the MP4 as a platform short would hide both. It is a poster and a still: safe as a feed image, an OG card, a slide or a print handout.
2. Palette. It is drawn in the skill's blueprint language, not the house palette in scene_kit.py (#07090c ground, #ff8a3d accent). That file's own comment is the argument: a short that does not match the film it promotes looks like somebody else made it.

Meeting both would mean recomposing inside a 1220px band and re-skinning — a different piece, not a setting. Worth doing if these are to sit beside the eight shorts in docs/Blog/video/; not worth doing if promo/ stays posters. That is the call to make on this PR.

Contents

• promo/README.md — what is here, how to regenerate it, and the two constraints above
• promo/build-foundation.py — the generator; the numbers live in one table at the top
• promo/foundation/ — PNG 2160×3840, MP4 8.4s, GIF, and the self-contained HTML source

4.4 MB of renders. They are the shareable artefacts, so they are committed rather than regenerated on demand — but every one of them comes back from the generator if that trade stops being worth it.

No source changes. 556 tests unaffected.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01W45tzJFX3NoSrk7svtQeKT