For nearly seventy years, Bloom’s cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains have supplied education’s default definition of a whole learning outcome. This article argues that the three-domain architecture is no longer theoretically adequate to that task and proposes a seven-dimension architecture — affective, cognitive, executive, embodied, aesthetic-expressive, sociocultural, and ethical — as a theoretical alternative. The three-domain model is shown to be structurally insufficient on four grounds: it omits capacities essential to whole-person learning; it treats its named domains as non-interacting silos with no account of how they combine within a single learner; it misrepresents embodiment as a parallel skill track rather than as constitutive of cognition; and it predates the executive-function, social-cognitive, and developmental-neuroscience literatures that now document these capacities as distinct, sequentially maturing systems. The seven-dimension architecture addresses each insufficiency, sequencing the dimensions along parallel gradients of neurobiological and functional complexity such that each is a precondition for the next. Two consolidation tables position the argument and the alternative architecture for rapid appraisal. The article closes by examining the necessity and holistic usefulness of this transition for competency-based and policy-aligned education, while positioning the seven-dimension model as a theoretical proposal requiring empirical validation rather than a settled replacement for Bloom’s taxonomy.