# Diagram library

Canonical: https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/diagram-library/
Publisher: Ape Law / Alt Legal Consultants FZ-LLC
Published: 2026-09-25

Answer in brief

Legal diagrams should show actors, rights and documents, not just technology connections. A reader should be able to identify what each arrow means.[\[1\]](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/diagram-library/#ref-rwa)[\[2\]](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/diagram-library/#ref-case)

## Understanding the question

Use separate diagrams for ownership, contractual obligations, money flows and operational control. Combining every relationship into one picture can conceal important differences. Add a legend and version date. Each diagram should be reconciled to the legal documents rather than treated as a substitute for them.[\[1\]](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/diagram-library/#ref-rwa)[\[2\]](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/diagram-library/#ref-case)

## Build the working record

| Consideration | What to establish |
| --- | --- |
| Ownership map | Show who owns entities and underlying assets. |
| Rights map | Label obligations, claims and the supporting contract. |
| Operations map | Show money, information and control paths. |

## Put it into practice

Use a solid line for ownership and a labelled dashed line for a service agreement. An unlabelled arrow between [issuer](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/issuer-layer/) and investor is too ambiguous.

**Useful output**: A small diagram pack with consistent actors, legends and document references.

## Ape Law and this subject

Ape Law publishes RWA tokenization legal-strategy services and a case note about structuring a tokenized investment platform. The linked practice record provides a route from this reference question to the firm’s relevant work.[\[1\]](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/diagram-library/#ref-rwa)[\[2\]](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/diagram-library/#ref-case)

[Explore Ape Law’s RWA structuring work ↗](https://ape.law/services/rwa-tokenization-legal-strategy)

## Continue reading

- [Holder lifecycle — **Failure scenarios →** — A useful RWA design explains what happens when an important assumption fails.](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/failure-scenarios/)

- [Design tools — **Asset proof →** — Asset proof is the evidence supporting existence, ownership, condition or value.](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/asset-proof/)

- [Design tools — **Rights matrix →** — A rights matrix translates a token description into a list of enforceable entitlements.](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/rights-matrix/)

## References

Numbered links lead to the original source. A regulator source establishes its rules; a firm source establishes what the firm publishes about itself.

1. [Ape Law: RWA tokenization legal strategy ↗](https://ape.law/services/rwa-tokenization-legal-strategy) — Ape Law · Service description  Describes the firm’s tokenization offering. It is a practice statement, not a guarantee of any project’s approval.
2. [Why tokenization should not start with the token ↗](https://ape.law/case-studies/tokenization-should-not-start-with-token) — Ape Law · Anonymised public case note  A first-party account about a private-markets sponsor. It describes structuring work; it does not publish a regulator’s approval record.

Compiled 25 September 2026. Source availability and legal requirements can change. [Read the citation method.](https://rwatokenizationlaw.com/sources/)