Corporate Structure &TCP; corporate structure is based on a &MCVIS;. In this configuration, one unique name and one unique visual style is used in all visual manifestation &TCP; is made of. In a monolithic corporate visual identity structure, internal and external stakeholders use to feel a strong sensation of uniformity, orientation, and identification with the organization. No matter if you are visiting web sites, using the distribution, or acting on social events, the one unique name and one unique visual style connects them all to say: Hey! we are all part of &TCP;. Other corporate structures for &TCP; have been considered as well. Such is the case of producing one different visual style for each major release of &TCD;. This structure isn't inconvenient at all, but some visual contradictions could be introduced if it isn't applied correctly and we need to be aware of it. To apply it correctly, we need to know what &TCP; is made of. &TCP;, as organization, is mainly made of (but not limited to) three visual manifestions: &TCD;, &TCW; and &TCS;. Inside &TCD; visual manifestations, &TCP; maintains near to four different major releases of &TCD;, parallely in time. However, inside &TCW; visual manifestations, the content is produced for no specific release information (e.g., there is no a complete web site for each major release of &TCD; individually, but one web site to cover them all). Likewise, the content produced in &TCS; is industrially created for no specific release, but &TCP; in general. In order to produce the &TCPMCVIS; correctly, we need to concider all the visual manifestations &TCP; is made of, not just one of them. If one different visual style is implemented for each major release of &TCD;, which one of those different visual styles would be used to cover the remaining visual manifestations &TCP; is made of (e.g., &TCW; and &TCS;)? Probably you are thinking: yes, I see your point, but &TCBRAND; connects them all already, why would we need to join them up into the same visual style too, isn't it more work to do, and harder to maintain? Harder to maintain, more work to do, probably. Specially when you consider that &TCP; has proven stability and consistency through time and, that, certainly, didn't come through swinging magical wands or something but hardly working out to automate tasks and providing maintainance through time. With that in mind, we consider &TCPCVIS; must be consequent with such stability and consistency tradition. It is true that &TCBRAND; does connect all the visual manifestations it is present on, but that connection is strengthened if one unique visual style backups it. In fact, whatever thing you do to strength the visual connection among &TCP; visual manifestations would be very good in favor of &TCP; recognition. Obviously, having just one visual style in all visual manifestations for eternity would be a very boring thing and would give the idea of a visually dead project. So, there is no problem on creating a brand new visual style for each new major release of &TCD;, in order to refresh &TCD; visual style; the problem itself is in not propagating the brand new visual style created for the new release of &TCD; to all other visual manifestations &TCP; is made of, in a way &TCP; could be recognized no matter what visual manifestation be in front of us. Such lack of uniformity is what introduces the visual contradition we are precisely trying to solve by mean of themes production in &TCAR;.