Heading Large
heading-lgKeep the setup criteria visible
Preview now Measuring- Mobile · 390px
- Current 26pxProposed 21px
- Tablet · 1024px
- Current 30pxProposed 28px
- Desktop · 1280px
- Current 32pxProposed 30.5px
- Large · 1920px
- Current 32pxProposed 30.5px
Current Product globals sit beside the proposed values. The sample below each name responds to your live viewport, but only inside this lander. The smaller heading steps also have a +1px mobile proposal; the separate Body roles trial appears below.
Display Large is the largest proposed step. On mobile it is 28px, 3.5px above Heading XL. On tablet it is 37px, 7px above Heading XL. At 1280px Display Large reaches 41px, 6px above Heading XL at 35px, then grows smoothly to 49.5px at 1920px and stops. The 1280–1920px fluid band is a proposed exception to approved fixed-breakpoint Decision 3, not an approved global rule. If approved, this would be one global class with responsive token values, not page overrides.
heading-lgheading-xldisplay-lgThe affected Heading scale rows below now show the same proposal as the comparison above. The smaller heading rows propose 22 / 20 / 18px on mobile against the approved current 21 / 19 / 17px. None of these rules have been promoted. “Now” measures each specimen’s computed font size and line height. A slash in Tablet shows 768–1023 / 1024–1279. Review flags use a 14px floor for readable body text and 12px for true labels and captions; these are review heuristics, not approved accessibility criteria.
Six heading steps have proposed values, including +1px mobile for heading-md/sm/xs.
Current article selectors, including the existing H5/H6 issue. The 1024px tablet change is visible separately.
Large · 1920px is 1.5px above desktop for every body role. The 1280–1920px band and 17.5px named-role ceiling are separate pending approvals; the arbitrary-size guard stays 14.5–16px. No public paragraph rules change.
Replay the same setup through quiet and volatile sessions. Record the entry, invalidation, and result before deciding whether the pattern holds across a useful sample.
Compare the written plan with what actually happened, then keep the decision and its context in the journal.
Take the strategy you already trade and test it privately across historical conditions before you trust the next decision.
Evidence stays tied to the rule you tested.
Run the same entry criteria through another historical session and note where the setup stops working.
Candidate role mapping for article prose; headings above remain an observed comparison.
Replay the same setup through quiet and volatile sessions. Record the entry, invalidation, and result before deciding whether the pattern holds across a useful sample.
“A good result is one you can trace back to a decision made before the outcome was visible.”
entry-rule: session-confirmed| Session | Sample | Review |
|---|
| London | 42 tests | Review context |
What changes when you replay a familiar setup through a less forgiving market condition?
Keep the written rules beside the result when you review a session.
Actual control, caption, chip, question and field contexts.
Editorial card copy beside existing Strategy-card metadata values.
Keep the conditions and invalidation alongside the chart, even when a trade looks obvious in hindsight.
Roles not covered by the core list, explicitly named rather than hidden in a component.
Keep this note private until you choose to share it.
Write the invalidation rule before continuing.
No matching session notes yet. Change the filter to review the full sample.
entry-rule: session-confirmed
The heading and Body roles proposals above change no global typography, public route, navigation, footer, Ploybook, or checkout type. Approval of these numbers would be a separate step before any global promotion; unrelated roles remain out of scope.