Lost in Transposition?

A diagrammatic practice is, among other qualities, direct and adaptable as it is described by Stan Allen's Diagrams Matter. While these seem to me desirable qualities in a design practice, I wonder how the diagrammed design succeeds in directness and adaptability more than the methods he is arguing against. I read the operation of transposition as a decontextualising of an element of a system mechanically, and then allowing new meanings to emerge from the assemblage of elements into a diagram. I question whether the produces something that is merely different rather than something that is relevant. Consider the example of Alexander of Macedon's dream as it is provided in this essay. Aristander's transposition of satyr into sa Tyros directed Alexander to lead a successful attack, but did the actual name satyr have a primary role in his dream? What if the name of the dancing visage had been transposable to mean "Tyros is not thine"? The answer, likely in my opinion, is that some other justification would have been found for pressing the attack, perhaps by transposing the word for dancing to indicate imminent victory. For what is absent in the story is the scenario: the quantity of provisions remaining, the moral of soldiers, the weather, evidence of the condition of the enemy, and so on. Perhaps diagrams act in an analogous way in architecture: perhaps they serve as oversimplified justification for a specific design (even in the case of the most abstract diagram), while the collective experience and instincts of a project's designers act to determine the success of the design.