Having arrived at this stage, we are able to examine archaeological built environment maps for the physical information they contain and identify the boundaries shaping the entities of which the built environment consists. We must now move from bona fide physical presence of boundaries to fiat, to address how we understand their presence interpretively. Analysing physical presence results in little more than dimensions: information about the geometry, topology, morphology, and topography of built space. The difficulty with such information is that it is entirely contingent whether it has any bearing on social understanding. 5 The evidence base of archaeology is distinctly material, which is arguably why the discipline has struggled to contribute more substantially to social theory and synthesis has traditionally shown little attention to material integration (Sherratt 1993;Vis 2009). What this foregrounds is that our precise understanding of empirically derived (mechanical objectivity) archaeological evidence as physical evidence (judgmental objectivity) (cf. Galison 1998Galison , 2000Galison , 2010) has yet to transition into material evidence. This deliberate distinction of material evidence is meant to alert to us that **data** which captures material evidence must directly be of an interpretive nature. The next step towards social interpretation of built space is thus to construct interpretive data. Interpretive **data** redirects traditional **data** interpretation with precision and rigour, because it structurally links the empirical origins of spatial **data** to the ideas we have about them. These structural links provide the bridges that resolve the leaps between ontological registers (cf. Lucas 2015) that trouble and restrict the value of many archaeological interpretations. Rigorous use of interpretive **data** also carefully delimits the ontological register of interpretation, i.e. it ensures that **data** is commensurate with the understanding sought through analysis.