hey @Chr1sG ,
thx for your take, and weighing in!
– I see where you are coming from. 
… but, I would say – and actually the whole case is about that: in the context of the different landscapes of knowledge management and organizational processes existing: it depends.
The critical question is indeed taken up by your contribution – though I´d have a different answer: Does the presence of an entity on a whiteboard provide additional context, or do the links between entities exist regardless of ‘visualization’ (which I would call ‘mapping’, or ‘association’)?
in this context, it depends on where the knowledge generation (about links) is done, really. Plus, I´d say ,the world at large – especially when viewed through an ecological or relational lens – isn’t constrained to a database model, or to entitites with pre-defined attributes. I´d also say, this challenge universally applies to existing methods of contemporary knowledge or value production. Certainly in the fields I am in (media production; mapping and working with transcultural knowledges; creative research; discourse production)
In contexts like stock inventory management, database (entity) models with fixed attributes are valid and effective. However, this isn’t the case for every scenario. When structuring and building links on a whiteboard—during brainstorming sessions, narrative constructions, or mapping systems of relationships—the dynamic fundamentally shifts. Here the attributes originate, thrive and often live on whiteboards, not in tables, really. Here, whiteboards are not a visualization of something else. They are the plane / medium of production and relational work in the first place. Here, entities are re-modelled, iterated, productively differentiated and their (new) relations come into existence.
Also, whoever works in meetings and work groups knows, one of the foremost techniques of capturing (explicit and implicit) social knowledge about relations, and feed them ‘into the system’ is doing a mapping session.
In all this, the whiteboard isn’t merely for visualizing pre-existing entities. It´s also for registering or constructing relations in the first place. (This is the whole basis of the existence of whiteboard apps for the bussiness world, like Miro etc.).
If you want to go beyond the examples and contexts already cited / given, consider ecosystem analysis, for instance. In this field also, entities are not defined by fixed attributes but by their multiple potential relations. Everything becomes a type of environment, where the mapping of potential relations is central to understanding and specifying entities. Attributes and relations are identified within these mappings, mirroring the processes integral to ecosystems. Attributes (values) equal relations in ecosystems.
And also, by extension, this is true for cultural and social fields, meanhwile by the way. See things like ecosystem service evaluation, but also designing full-scale service ecosystems, circular economy product development, social design, audience development, etc.
Thus, this paradigm transcends into many business scenarios, particularly where narratives, scripted media productions, or sociocultural mappings are involved. It reflects a shift towards seeing entities as co-defined by their relationships, which really is a perspective gaining prevalence across multiple ‘professional fields’.
So, the question I am having here: Is Fibery designed to represent this ecological and associative world(s) and their form of value production? (Value in the dual sense of bussiness value, but also the ‘values’ associated to a certain attribute and / or link or relation?
As you might see by now, for me and in my work experience the whiteboard is not a secondary visualization ex ante, but the working / association plane where I do the work of establishing / realizing ‘potential links’ (as you name it). This was true whether I was working around scripting media production so called ‘world building’, in creative research (academic or arts-related), mapping out ‘brain scripts’ (curation, education, outrreach), or mapping cultural and semantic domains (discourse mapping; social / transdomain knowledge management) , etc etc.
Unquestionably Fibery already offers extensive modeling capabilities, and internal feedforwards and feedbacks to turn implicit knowledge (foremost: relations) into explicit representation within the system. And up to here I was approaching Fibery from the assumptions that (almost) everything (every logic) that is relevant for processes of professional ‘value production’ can be modelled into it, and that the system is geared to use any activity in any part to be a potential source of insight generation.
But given these additional contexts and existing logics, for me understanding whether such associations and mappings I am dealing with can integrate into Fibery’s system is really, what this is about. So, my insertion isn’t about unduly stretching Fibery’s own aspirations or claims beyond its intentions. It’s about recognizing whether this kind of relational mapping and dynamic association falls within its capabilities. Or could, at some point.
And I think for those who find that this ecological and associative approach defines their work, clarity on this front is possibly a vital for the question of adoption, resp. system alignment. As I am convinced by my own professional experiences, that a lot of processes in institutions / organizations by now consist of such creative mapping and associating open contexts.
).
]
) and b) extend / deepen ‘the issue’. which is indeed a complex one –especially for non software- and network-architects like me…
– I didn´t find that at the time, so am sorry to have ‘forked’ 
) modesty on top…! 
) – and then ‘play it out’ on the visual plane in a schema board (whiteboard)…