This "almost olicognography" is not our, so marked: (nfm: not from me). If conceived with specified discriminating common definitions to discuss and even argued in international tribunes, it reflects nevertheless the prospects of complexity management and it is a fine scheme.
Now, for some explainations, since our olicognographic perspective, it is to imagine why society, economy and ecology are both separated and also joined since having something to do together in this picture. Questions are like why society is separated from economy? Indeed objective separation of power and undemocratic managements make that decisions in economics sphere could (should be?) "protected" from society. Meanwhile ecology is implicitly assumed here all depending from the good/bad will of humans. This is obviously the superior will of modern global society (should or not be ?), but that prejudge also about the local level (say like pityful local governments?). Here, it can be observed that ecology is anthropized, missing that there is a Nature (and logics?) out the societies' or economics' areas of influence. Do we have to think that Nature out human has no logics ? - but this is either a rethoretic either a theological question.
There is a rational (artificial?) disposal of progressive mixtures of, originally separated concepts. Most concepts are somehow - despite their very different logical and practical methods of treatment - of the same level of scale. Practically there have been an objective statement of the concept of 'sustainable development', a bias toward a Business friendly and United Nations leading kind of perspective. That is different, from the point of view of geopoliticians (simple politicians do not dare more to be ecological non friend). May be deep ecologism would dislike this inferior position of "ecology". Neither this picture would please socioeconomists: they may find harsh to separate economy from society. Finally engineers could also dislike to imagine that the implicit modern core of economics ignore technology.
There is a quite similar levels of scale of 'cogniception' of the 3 basic concepts. This does not reflect what is more real: humans practice, individual behaviors and 'slightly' those of intermediate levels as (big) firms, governments, and so on. Now, the purpose of the comments are not so for critizing the "pre-olicognograph", since no olicognograph is itself enough explicit so as to reach better comprehension than this one. Neither they are to manage far away from a spirit of complex humane management.
The aim of these comments is to suggest what sort of mark-questions you have to manage; as when in a working team or a democratic community. So the olicognograph you are designing and shaping reflects the practical dimensions of your projects: not to take the olicognograph the perfect object of a theory.