Non-Clinical Descriptive Geometry for Accessibility Geometry v0.1

Non-Clinical Descriptive Geometry for Accessibility Geometry v0.1 introduces a bounded comparative method for using established non-clinical descriptive languages to improve recognition of Accessibility Geometry (AG) constructs without converting comparison into personality classification, identity assignment, prediction, diagnosis, or decision authority. The framework is situated within Accessibility Geometry Descriptive Studies (AGDS) and operates downstream of Accessibility Geometry itself. Its governing direction is deliberately one-way: AG construct → descriptive analogy → structural resemblance → explicit boundary → review cue The reverse path—beginning with an external type, label, archetype, trait, or personality category and using AG to justify a classification or verdict—is treated as methodological failure. NCDG is designed for careful comparison with descriptive families that may include Jungian and post-Jungian language, typological systems, dimensional personality models, interpersonal geometry, narrative and role frameworks, symbolic and archetypal systems, temperament language, communication and leadership descriptions, and related non-clinical traditions. These systems may function as orientation scaffolds, alternative explanations, nulls, or translation aids; none is permitted to redefine an AG construct or transfer its empirical, psychometric, causal, or ontological authority into Accessibility Geometry. The paper develops an AG-first comparative method, a reusable comparison-entry template, source-status discipline, high-risk language controls, misuse-prevention rules, and an explicit null architecture. It distinguishes preference from capacity, state from trait, person from situation, learned adaptation from native disposition, reliability from validity, categorical language from continuous variation, framework plurality from epistemic independence, shared visual geometry from shared latent space, and structural resemblance from common mechanism. A central feature of the framework is that comparisons must be able to fail. NCDG therefore recognizes six admissible outcomes: Retain, Narrow, Translate, Retire, Reject, and Hold. Translation-only status is treated as a legitimate success state where an analogy improves reader comprehension without adding unique evidentiary support. The framework also establishes strong prohibitions against personality typing, cognitive-function assignment, archetypal identity claims, scoring, ranking, profiling, behavioral prediction, compatibility judgment, leadership or employment suitability assessment, public characterization of identifiable third parties, clinical inference, proxy laundering, and automated classification. The governing claim ceiling is: NCDG may compare. It may not infer personality, identity, mechanism, diagnosis, prediction, suitability, competence, moral status, risk, or ontology. Its central purpose is correspondingly narrow: NCDG exists to make Accessibility Geometry easier to see through comparison—not to determine what an observer is. Keywords: Accessibility Geometry; Non-Clinical Descriptive Geometry; Accessibility Geometry Descriptive Studies; Descriptive Comparison; Structural Resemblance; Identity-Assignment Drift; Comparative Methodology; Personality Typology; Jungian Typology; Five-Factor Model; Interpersonal Circumplex; Psychometric Boundaries; Null Models; Claim Governance; Misuse Prevention