The model which we have devised must be able to generate evolution and manage complexity or, rather, it must be able to increase the complexity of the system.

It is therefore worth clarifying what we mean by complexity.

The study of complexity is the form itself of an evolutionary dynamic. Indeed E. Jantsch asserts that "planning in an evolutionary spirit does not involve a reduction but an increase of uncertainty and complexity. It increases uncertainty because we decide to widen the spectrum of choices. 31 Imagination enters the picture. Instead of doing that which is obvious, we want to look for and take into consideration also that which is not so obvious" . 32

It is impossible, however, "to produce complexity directly, without activating or waiting for the evolution of a dynamic process whose history, real or virtual, passed in linear and discontinuous evolution has increased and not broken up its own characterisation". 33

In terms of an object scale, complexity depends on the specific history of a project which has led to that possible result, on the genius loci, of that particular environment, on the operative logic activated beyond the gesture, perhaps impromptu, which has sparked the evolutionary process. At this point it is worth underlining that the organisational structure of the morphogenetic project discards those models which use exclusively linear procedures because they are unable to manage evolution which can be predicted with certainty.

In fact an "essential prerequisite for complex evolutionary phenomena is a non-linear dynamic, which involves place within certain limits, instability of motion and divisions characterised by a combination of variables. It is therefore implicit that the main aspect of the problem is the specificity of the system in consideration, and so at each stage of the analysis the modeler must be able to link the parameters of order to the variables originally present, of adding the normal dynamic form to the mechanism of processes which occur in the system, and of satisfying the boundaries which can be imposed by the nature of the problem itself". 34

Now we can begin to enter our project paradigm itself.

Our model is deduced from the more general pre-project paradigm described before and represents the application in a specific case of a "project, virtual event, unambiguously placed in space and time, with an individual identity and recognisability as a species, in that it is generated by a specific and subjective project logic". 35

It is a model which is subjective, because it has evolved, and dynamic because it is in continuous evolution. The project paradigm derived directly from the pre-project paradigm is filtered by a series of "main proposals", of subjective interpretations and dynamic characteristics which we have prioritised in tackling the problem of interface specifications.

These are:

-	the route,36 movement between two opposites;
-	the necessity for a lengthened boundary which allows stopping and therefore living on the brink;
-	the need of a light-shadow filter;
-	the possibility of transition zones37 which allow the user to intervene actively;
-	the obligation of involving at the same time and more actively our senses and our expressiveness.

In starting the paradigm we used a series of catalysts. These were the subjective fields of analysis, synthesised with the performance and way of managing the exceptions in the graphs that follow. Once set in motion, through the catalysts the process obtains an individual, a scene which must respond to the preset objectives for which all the events are accepted, becoming part of the project history only after losing the connotations of categoricalness, due to subjectivity and chance, and acquiring a capacity of intersubjective response.

This process of purification stems takes place with the repetition of the cycle, a recurring procedure which has the capacity to evolve and change, adjusting the pre-project paradigm to what is required. The paradigm moves in the direction of an increase in the complexity of the system, and at the same time of the capacity of response and therefore of flexibility and adaptiveness.