What it governs
Whether an AI feature uses a dedicated glyph to identify itself as AI — separate from any
glyph used to show it is generating, or any glyph used to flag uncertainty. It governs only
the identity glyph: the one that answers “is this AI,” not the ones that answer “is it
working” or “should I trust this.”
It does not govern Foundations: Iconography
itself — the closed 154-icon set, the four size tokens, and the color pairings every icon in
the product already draws from, including any identity glyph this page eventually adopts.
Vocabulary
Three glyphs get confused for one because they can all sit in the same corner of the same
card. This page owns exactly one of them.
Choosing a value
Reference
Nothing is decided or shipped. No identity glyph exists for any Invoca agentic feature today.
This section will be generated from a real decision once one exists.
Relationships
An identity glyph, if adopted, comes from
Foundations: Iconography’s closed set —
or from a formal proposal to extend it, exactly like any other icon in the
product. It also inherits that page’s color rules: an identity glyph is colored with an
icon-* token, never a hex value or a text-color token, and if it carries a status-adjacent
meaning it uses the -alt variant.
It pairs with Identifiers: Color —
if a color treatment is decided, the glyph and the treatment are the icon-plus-color pairing
Color’s own constraint requires everywhere else — and with
Identifiers: Avatar, since a small
identity glyph is one of the plausible shapes an AI mark could take.
Accessibility
- An icon-only identity mark has an accessible name stating what it is — “AI-generated,” not
a description of the glyph — the same requirement Iconography’s accessible-name rule places on every icon-only
control.
- A decorative use of the glyph (appearing beside text that already discloses AI content) is
hidden from assistive technology with
aria-hidden="true", per Iconography’s decorative-icon rule.
- The glyph is never the sole carrier of the AI disclosure. Pair it with text, per
Iconography’s icon-plus-text rule and the overview’s disclosure requirement.
Constraints
Divergences
Not applicable. Nothing is shipped yet to diverge from.
Gaps
- Whether a glyph vocabulary is needed at all, given that Name and Color together might
disclose AI content sufficiently on their own, is undecided.
- Whether one identity glyph serves all of Invoca’s agentic surfaces or each needs its own is
the same per-feature-or-once question flagged on the
overview.
Identifiers: Avatar ·
Identifiers: Color ·
Identifiers: Name ·
Identifiers: Personality ·
AI Experience overview ·
Foundations: Iconography
Why it works this way
Icons are learned, not read — Iconography’s one-meaning-per-icon rule exists because a
glyph that means two different things on two different screens has to be relearned every
time, which means it is carrying no information at all. That problem gets worse, not better,
under an identity glyph, because the three candidate meanings — is this AI, is it working,
should I trust it — are exactly the three questions a confused user is most likely to be
asking at the same moment. Splitting them into three glyphs owned by three different
categories is what keeps any one of them answerable at a glance.
Status
No visual identity has been decided for any Invoca agentic feature yet. This page
proposes a framework for making that decision — it is not the decision itself. See
Coverage, stated honestly.Last modified on September 17, 2026
