design.vecreal.com / workshop / V valley · round 9

Brand reference · workshop · round 9 · 2026-05-12

V valley · round 9 — y=32.75 (split) + spacing review

Operator confirmed the "stocky" read at y=32 and is between y=32.5 and y=33. Round 9 tests y=32.75 (the split). Plus a health check on V-to-e margin (-0.11em locked rev-3) and dot size (0.23em locked rev-7) since the V's silhouette + stroke have shifted meaningfully from R4-A.

Valley parametric — y=32.75 in context

Valley yStroke (const)Curve dips toNote
32.012.5831.35round 7 R4-Bhm · "stocky"
32.512.2931.85round 8 proposed
33.012.0032.35= R4-Bw exactly · matches R4-A stroke

y=32.75 logic: stroke 12.14 is just barely above R4-A's 12, with the deepest valley curve in the Bhm family. The legs are essentially R4-A-thick — institutional substance without the round-7 chunky read — while the valley is as full-depth as the parametric allows without becoming R4-Bw itself.

Section A · R4-A baseline reference

Production current at 80 px — the system being upgraded.

R4-A baseline production · sharp inner · stroke 12 → 11.7
ecreal

Section B · Valley depth progression — y=32.5 → y=32.75 → y=33 at 80 px

Same V silhouette (46 × 39.27, outer x=9, apex y=50.27) across all three. Valley shifts in 0.25-unit steps. Stroke adjusts to keep parallel legs.

R4-Bhm @ y=32.5 round 8 · stroke 12.29 · dip y=31.85
ecreal
ecreal
R4-Bw @ y=33 endpoint · stroke 12.00 · dip y=32.35
ecreal

Section C · y=32.75 close inspection at 140 px

Display-size compare of the three Bhm-family valley depths. The y=32.75 dip-to-y=32.10 reads as "real valley" without being as deep as Bw's y=33.

R4-Bhm @ y=32.5 ⇄ y=32.75 ⇄ y=33 at 140 px

y=32.5 (round 8)
ecreal
ecreal
y=33 (=R4-Bw)
ecreal

Section D · Spacing review at y=32.75 — V-to-e × dot size matrix

Four combinations of V-to-e margin × dot size, all with R4-Bhm @ y=32.75 V. Check whether the locked rev-3 (-0.11em V-to-e) and rev-7 (0.23em dot) still feel right with the new V character, or want minor adjustment.

-0.11em / 0.23em CURRENT locked spacing · re-rendered for Bhm
ecreal
-0.105em / 0.23em slightly looser V-to-e · dot unchanged
ecreal
-0.11em / 0.24em V-to-e unchanged · dot bumped 4%
ecreal
-0.105em / 0.24em both adjustments
ecreal
-0.12em / 0.23em tighter V-to-e · for contrast
ecreal
-0.11em / 0.25em larger dot · for contrast
ecreal

Section E · Spacing close inspection at 140 px

The four primary spacing combinations at display size — the read is clearest here.

Current ⇄ Looser V-to-e ⇄ Bigger dot ⇄ Both at 140 px

-0.11em / 0.23em · current
ecreal
-0.105em / 0.23em · looser V-to-e
ecreal
-0.11em / 0.24em · bigger dot
ecreal
-0.105em / 0.24em · both
ecreal

Spec summary

Variant Valley y Stroke V-to-e Dot Dot margin-left Notes
R4-A baseline 32 sharp12-0.11em0.23emcalc(0.03em+2px) production current
R4-Bhm @ y=32.5 32.5 round12.29-0.11em0.23emcalc(0.03em+2px) round 8
R4-Bw @ y=33 33 round12.00-0.11em0.23emcalc(0.03em+2px) endpoint reference

Honest spacing analysis — should anything change?

V-to-e (-0.11em). Math: V outer right at "e" x-height moves from x=49.61 (R4-A) to x=51.03 (R4-Bhm) — extends ~0.009em further toward "e" at that height. With same -0.11em margin, V/e interlock tightens ~1.3% with R4-Bhm. At 80 px that's 0.7 px; at 140 px 1.3 px. Below perception threshold. No real adjustment justified on math alone.

Dot size (0.23em). V mass increased ~5% from R4-A to R4-Bhm (wider silhouette + chunkier legs). Dot/V height ratio drifted from ~35% (locked target from rev-7 H2 favicon alignment) to ~33%. Bumping dot to 0.24em restores the ratio (and per the proportional positioning rule, margin-left shifts from calc(0.03em+2px) to calc(0.025em+2px) to keep dot optical center fixed). Defensible but not necessary.

My verdict: keep both at current. The math says the differences are small. The bigger risk is over-tuning — once we start adjusting spacing to compensate for V geometry, we're back to incremental aesthetic fiddling on an already resolved system. The original -0.11em / 0.23em pairing was tuned for a system where every element earned its place. R4-Bhm is well within tolerance.

The argument for changing (if you disagree): if Section E's "current" row at 140 px reads as too tight at V/e or dot feels too small relative to the new V, one — not both — adjustments. Looser V-to-e (-0.105em) is more likely to be visible than dot 0.24em. If you only change one thing, pick the V-to-e.

The argument against changing (my honest lean): both rev-3 and rev-7 locks were operator-driven through their own workshop rounds. Reopening them after V geometry settles risks compounding small re-tunings. The system is in a resolved state at the locked spacings — let it be unless something visibly feels off.

To lock, name:
1. V geometry: R4-Bhm @ y=32.5 | y=32.75 | y=33
2. Spacing: keep current (-0.11em / 0.23em) or specify changes

Once locked, I regenerate assets/wordmark.svg with Inter Bold text-as-paths + new V path + final spacing in a single clean pass.

Vecreal · brand workshop · 2026-05-12 · v-valley round 9 (y=32.75 + spacing review)