However, you need to be extraordinarily careful when you think you have found a new schema, because human brain is... special. We, as a species, have evolved to make quick, life-saving associations rather than semi-scientific approaches. While this has worked well for our ancestors, it does not help us in mapping, as we tend to jump to the conclusion.
Simon has mentioned many times that maps are an imperfect model of reality, imperfect, but useful, and that it is necessary to apply thought to a map.
The map alone is a meaningless set of circles and lines that do not have any significant properties. It has no value until it is linked to existing components and that link is consistently maintained.
- identify the force driving the change, and that the force is consistent across all the observations. If it is not, then there is no pattern, just coincidence.
- build a plausible analogy between involved components. Without that, you cannot say why components responded to the force in this particular way, and therefore you have, again, a pure coincidence, not a pattern.