Condemn uses, not chart types

The pie page argued the form was the problem ("asks the reader to
compare angles") and then conceded a narrow exception; the dual-axis
page named the form in its title and rated it severity 5. Both read as
blanket bans, which is not the position — and blanket bans are how
dataviz advice turns into the folklore we're trying to replace with
citations.

The pie page now says outright that the chart type isn't the sin, the
workload is, and keeps the pie for the job it does well. The dual-axis
page is retitled for the actual misuse, drops to severity 4, and gains
a section on when a second axis is legitimate — the test being whether
you chose the alignment yourself.

Adds a severity rubric to CLAUDE.md so this stays consistent: 5 is
reserved for charts with no honest reading, and a form with legitimate
uses caps at 4.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULE5RRxdQE1ebwefEd2eCM

src/content/sins/too-many-pie-slices.md

@@ -20,17 +20,23 @@ citations:
   - key: wilke
     note: "His chapter on proportions puts the same data in a pie, a stacked bar and side-by-side bars, so you can see what each one costs you."
   - key: eagereyes
-    note: "Kosara has actually run the experiments, and complicates the blanket condemnation — read him before swearing off pies entirely."
+    note: "Kosara has actually run the experiments, and they don't support treating the pie as broken by nature — useful if someone tells you the chart type itself is the problem."
   - key: showmenumbers
     note: "Few’s full design manual, for when the short broadside isn’t enough to win the argument."
 ---
 
 ## The sin
 
-The pie chart asks the reader to compare **angles** — something people are
-genuinely bad at. One or two slices, fine. But eight slices, several of them
-within a percentage point of each other? Nobody can tell whether Firefox beats
-Samsung by eyeballing two thin wedges on opposite sides of the circle.
+A pie chart does one job, and does it well: showing that a handful of parts make
+up a whole — this slice is about half, that one about a quarter. Nothing else
+communicates "most of it" quite as fast.
+
+Eight slices, several within a percentage point of each other, is not that job.
+Nobody can tell whether Firefox beats Samsung by eyeballing two thin wedges on
+opposite sides of the circle.
+
+**The chart type isn't the sin here — the workload is.** Pies are not banned
+around here; this one was just asked to answer a question it can't answer.
 
 ## Why it deceives
 
@@ -39,9 +45,18 @@ circle can't be lined up against a common baseline. The small categories blur
 into an indistinguishable fringe, and the ranking — usually the whole point —
 becomes guesswork.
 
+Worse, the reader doesn't feel like they're guessing. The chart looks exact, so
+a rank read off it gets quoted with a confidence nothing on the page earns.
+
 ## The repentance
 
-Use a **sorted horizontal bar chart**. Every value shares one baseline, the
-ordering is explicit, and long labels sit comfortably beside their bars. Reserve
-the pie for the rare case of two or three parts of an obvious whole — and even
-then, a bar chart rarely does worse.
+Match the form to the question you're actually asking.
+
+If the point is "these few parts make up the whole," a pie with two or three
+slices says it instantly, and you should keep it. If the point is a **ranking**
+— which is what an eight-category breakdown nearly always is — use a sorted
+horizontal bar chart: one shared baseline, explicit order, and room for long
+labels beside their bars.
+
+If you need the whole *and* the ranking, a sorted bar chart with the total
+stated in the title does both.