3. Process coverage

The same method was applied to the second axis: 172 cognitive processes against 918 Atlas concepts. This mapping was built from nothing. The process catalog carries no Atlas concept identifier of any kind, so there was no prior linkage to correct, only to construct.

3.1 Processes to concepts

Match type	Processes	Share
exact	102	59%
close	14	8%
related	23	13%
none	33	19%

3.2 Concepts to processes

Match type	Atlas concepts	Share
exact	102	11%
close	14	2%
related	16	2%
none	786	86%

132 distinct Atlas concepts are used by the 139 matched processes, because several processes share one Atlas record: both metacognitive processes resolve to metacognition, for example.

3.3 How the verdicts were decided

The related verdict does most of the interesting work here. It marks the cases where the Atlas carries only a broader parent: Affective priming against priming, Social perception against perception, Fine motor control against motor control. Recording those as close would overstate what the Atlas offers.

The none verdicts fall into two groups. Some are constructs the Atlas never registered as concepts even though it registers them as tasks, such as Antisaccade and Reversal learning. Others are vocabulary that post-dates the Atlas’s curation, notably Model-based learning, Model-free learning and the general form of reward prediction error, for which the Atlas has only monetary reward prediction error.

Definitions, not names, decided these. The Atlas concept named acoustic processing looks like an exact match for the process of the same name, but its definition describes “signals propagated undersea, in the atmosphere” – sonar, not audition – so it is recorded as close with that noted. Perspective taking matched worldview by name alone and was reassigned to theory of mind.