Periodic Table of Software (thatguybg)

![[assets/2026-07-19-periodic-table-of-software.jpg]]

The post (2026-07-18, 56k impressions / 852 bookmarks): "my hot take is that 99% of software can be built with the same set of finite elements. spending time/tokens building any of this from scratch over and over again is peak AI psychosis."

The image: 115 "elements" in six groups — Objects/nouns (1-35: Company, Person, Lead, Deal, Task, Invoice, Workflow…), Properties (36-60: Status, Date, Currency, Owner, Priority…), Actions/verbs (61-85: Create, Search, Approve, Escalate…), Interfaces/views (86-100: Grid, List, Kanban, Table, Feed, Form…), Intelligence/AI (101-108: Search, Summarize, Extract, Classify, Generate, Prompt, Recommend, Analyze), Rules/automation (109-115: Permission, Policy, Trigger, Schedule, Condition, Action, Audit).

Assessment

The taxonomy is genuinely useful. Groups 1-35 + 36-60 are the compressed schema of every CRM/PM tool ever shipped (basically Salesforce + Asana's ERD); 101-108 is a clean verb vocabulary for scoping AI skill stations; 109-115 maps to governance surfaces. Good checklist artifact for build scoping ("which elements does this page actually need?") on Squarely / HQ / generative-UI work.

The hot take is half right, and the half that's right is the bet RDCO already made. Reusable finite machinery instantiated per-use instead of rebuilt per-project IS the brigade-house thesis (stations/expo/rail/cellar as our periodic table; the factory instantiates brigades from the same elements; v2's "delete coordination, keep domain tools" ruling). See [[2026-07-18-agent-brigade-v2-simplification-design]].

Where it breaks: the 1% he waves off is the entire business. Elements are commodity — nobody pays for elements. They pay for (a) the composition fitting their specific workflow and (b) proof it runs in their environment. That is the evals + mise moat ("demo-grade vs delivery-grade", founder positioning 2026-07-09). If software were 99% finite elements, the ten thousand vertical SaaS products sitting on top of Salesforce's identical schema wouldn't exist — they exist because composition + context is where the value is.

Bias note: the author is a self-described "context farmer" building microHQ around this thesis. Right pitch, but a pitch.

Founder dialogue (2026-07-19 iMessage, same morning)

Founder accepted the chemistry framing and extended it — his additions worth keeping:

• Data-dots connection: finite drilled vocabulary → infinite composition is the same move as the "data dots" exploration. Drill fundamentals, define the space; a finite element set is freeing, not limiting (cited The Beautiful Constraint, Morgan & Barden).
• 115 is memorizable; combinations are infinite. The practice surface is the element set, the creative surface is composition.
• "The soft in software is for soft requirements": in chemistry, physics froze the element set; in software the elements are socially negotiated — every product argument is secretly a dispute over what's an element vs a compound. That's why the taxonomy can never be settled (unlike muffins or silicon etching). Ray's mirror: this is the fill-station problem in the cellar — atomic-competency-vs-composition boundary calls are 80% of the work.
• Build idea (his, status: penciled, no go yet): interactive periodic-table site, tap an element for a detail card. Ray's twist to make it non-derivative: a COMPOUNDS view — pick a product (CRM, Squarely, the brigade house) and light up its constituent elements. Internal toy on rdco.dev anytime; public version needs the twist + credit.

RDCO hooks

• Skill-station scoping vocabulary: Intelligence row 101-108.
• Build-scoping checklist for generative-UI / landing-page work.
• Sanity Check angle candidate (NOT a restate — would need the counter-frame: "the periodic table is free; chemistry is the business").

Why this is in the vault

• The 115-element table is a practical build-scoping checklist for generative-UI, Squarely, and HQ work — Intelligence row 101-108 is a clean verb vocabulary for scoping AI skill stations
• The bias flag and counter-assessment ("the 1% he waves off is the entire business") is the more valuable filing than the taxonomy itself — elements are commodity; composition + context is where the value is
• The founder dialogue (data-dots connection, finite-element-set-as-freeing, build idea for COMPOUNDS view) captures intellectual provenance for a potential interactive build
• The counter-frame — "the periodic table is free; chemistry is the business" — is the Sanity Check angle that makes this non-derivative

Mapping against Ray Data Co

• Squarely / HQ / generative-UI: 115-element table as build-scoping checklist; Intelligence row 101-108 maps directly to skill-station verb vocabulary in the brigade house
• Harness-engineering: brigade-house thesis (stations/expo/rail/cellar as a periodic table; factory instantiates brigades from the same finite elements) is independently the same move as Goldstein's
• Sanity Check: counter-frame ("the periodic table is free; chemistry is the business") is the non-derivative angle needed — not a restate of the taxonomy
• Build (penciled): interactive COMPOUNDS view — pick a product, light up its constituent elements; internal toy on rdco.dev anytime; public version needs the twist + credit