Why Dharma Uses 15, 25, 40, 62 and 95% Coverage

Dharma’s coverage denotes the portion of each figure’s total surface specified for black coating. The August 2026 design corrected a method based on frontal image brightness to one based on the mask specifying the coating. Shadows on exposed wood and differences in lighting had been counted as black.^[1]

The adopted values are 15, 25, 40, 62 and 95 per cent. They specify the design’s coating areas; they are not measurements of the finished physical coating or percentages of dark pixels in a work photograph.^[1]

The end values were fixed at 15 and 95 per cent while three alternatives varied the middle figures: A, 15/35/55/75/95; B, 15/25/40/62/95; and C, 15/20/27/38/95. Front and side views informed the selection of option B.^[1]

The record judged A to distinguish only two frontal stages and C to cluster the first four in side view, leaving the fifth separate. B was judged to distinguish three frontal stages and five from the side. Differentiation across viewpoints took priority over evenly spaced numbers.^[1]

An early approach extended black according to straight-line distance from the nose. It covered the front before reaching the back, making frontal differentiation difficult to reconcile with whole-surface coverage. The design changed to an approach that extends around the body from the direction of the face.^[1]

The change does not make the entire surface visible from the front. The middle values were selected within the remaining limits of where differences appear. Selecting percentages and selecting the geometry of their spread are related but distinct design decisions.

From left to right, the five figures represent the same form one year, one month, one week, one day and one hour ago. Coverage increases in this order, but was not calculated by converting time into area. The record excludes such a formula.^[1][2]

The successive increases are 10, 15, 22 and 33 percentage points. These unequal increments follow from choosing option B. The sequence pairs five past moments with five differently coated figures rather than depicting time at a mathematically consistent scale.

Equal intervals would make the numerical rule easy to recognise. Coating, however, extends across facial features and a curved body rather than a flat strip. Equal increases in area need not produce equally sized changes in a frontal view. Option A was not selected because numerical regularity and visible stages failed to coincide.

Option B retains a distinction between three frontal and five side-view stages. This difference can be treated as a specification of how viewpoint changes differentiation, rather than erased as a failure. A percentage table cannot substitute for appearance, and a frontal photograph cannot substitute for the whole-surface design values. Their mismatch makes recording numbers, form and viewpoint together necessary.