Socioplastics is transdisciplinary not because it spans many fields, but because its operation requires them simultaneously. The project does not move between disciplines; it integrates them into a single epistemic infrastructure. Architecture remains the centre of gravity, but only as transformed through its interaction with the others. The corpus demonstrates that knowledge can be constructed, tested, and stabilised across domains without collapsing into any one of them. This is not accumulation. It is synthesis under constraint. The transdisciplinarity is therefore structural: remove any primary field, and the system loses a necessary function. That is the test, and by its own evidence, Socioplastics passes it.

The mapping of Socioplastics across ten fields and forty-three subfields does not operate as a claim of breadth but as an inventory of structural necessity. The method is explicit: each field must be indispensable to the system, and each subfield must be evidenced within the corpus through node density, DOI deposits, dedicated channels, or sustained project development. By this criterion, the map is not rhetorical but empirical. It reflects what the project actually does: a stratigraphic corpus exceeding two thousand nodes, a distributed infrastructure across repositories and datasets, and a long-term practice articulated through LAPIEZA’s extensive series. The result is not a multidisciplinary assemblage but a system in which fields are interlocked rather than juxtaposed.

At its centre lies a dense core of four mutually constitutive domains. Architecture, redefined as epistemic construction, provides the structural logic: strata, load-bearing nodes, scalar organisation. Urban theory introduces resistance, forcing concepts to confront territorial, political, and material realities. Contemporary art supplies performative and relational testing, where propositions are enacted rather than described. Epistemology and systems theory offer reflexive accountability, ensuring that the project can describe its own operations as knowledge rather than mere production. These four fields do not coexist; they depend on one another. Remove architecture and the system loses construction. Remove urbanism and it loses grounding. Remove art and it loses embodied testing. Remove epistemology and it loses coherence.

The remaining six fields—political theory, ecology, media theory, film and sound, pedagogy, and complexity—operate as vectors of differentiation. They prevent closure. Through agonistic theory and post-institutional sovereignty, the project situates itself within struggles over knowledge and power. Through environmental psychology and ecological humanities, it extends beyond the human into more-than-human systems. Through machinic legibility and semantic infrastructure, it engages directly with the conditions of contemporary knowledge persistence. Film, sound, and performance expand the temporal and sensory register of the work. Pedagogy transforms transmission into production. Systems theory stabilises the dynamics of growth and recursion. These are not peripheral expansions but necessary pressures that keep the system open and adaptive.