First, what appears to be a truncation is not necessarily truncated. The features could be intentionally constructed, i.e. actually preserved and originally finished that way. This is arguably the most important distinction: do we see the representation of the finished article thanks to decent preservation or is the shape of this feature a representation of something broken? If the latter, there are still many options. Was the feature destroyed and, if so, when, by whom, and how? Did it deteriorate over time and, if so, by gradual dilapidation of the original feature after disuse or due to other site formation processes? Was it damaged by modification, reuse, or reappropriation in the ancient or recent past? Did it suffer from decay of perishable building materials or decay due to the perishing of originally incorporated natural elements (such as trees and plants)? Was (part of) the feature removed by either animals or humans after disuse or abandonment? Without a symbology for line ends, when conditions of archaeological recording allow for it, the end user will once again rely on rules of thumb to carry out the conjectures. Fortunately this can be done in critical and archaeologically knowledgeable and sensible ways (see Vis, under review, 2014b). Once the metadata of the project as well as spatial **data** and analogous information from historic and cultural proximity have been exhausted, one can still apply visual and morphological contrast when constructing complementary data, document the applied rules of thumb, and mark up **data** for easy separation of these conjectures from retentions of originally acquired spatial data.