Technical foundation · reference architecture

From workflow activity to governed evidence and accountable commitment.

The architecture keeps source telemetry, interpretation, semantic state, evaluation, and organizational commitment separate enough to inspect—and connected enough to produce a useful Workflow Value Ledger.

Three-band AIWI reference architecture covering ingestion and normalization, semantic and governance core, and decision and evaluation outputs.
AIWI reference architecture. This is an architecture record, not a claim that every depicted enterprise capability is production-deployed.

The diagram is organized into three functional bands. Each band answers a different diligence question.

1. Ingestion and normalization

Question: What enters Epistema, and how is source meaning preserved?

Telemetry, evaluations, chats, agent events, work records, artifacts, costs, and decisions can arrive from different carriers. The normalization layer retains source provenance while translating records into a common candidate-event shape.

Source-agnostic does not mean source-blind. Provider-specific evidence remains attributable; it simply does not get to define Epistema’s governed semantics.

2. Semantic and governance core

Question: How does activity become governed workflow meaning?

The semantic contract boundary preserves the sequence Evidence → Interpretation → Semantic State → Representation. Interpretation is the epistemic firewall: evidence can be promoted, withheld, or left contextual, but it cannot silently become organizational truth.

The ACTECRU lifecycle—Admission, Classification, Transformation, Evaluation, Commitment, Resolution, and Update—operates over typed states, transitions, constraints, evidence, and commitments.

3. Decision and evaluation outputs

Question: What can leaders and practitioners actually review?

A formal commitment record remains distinct from model output. QTF examines the quality of a transformation; PEI examines productive expansion. Both can inform—but neither can define—the Workflow Value Ledger or make the final decision.

High PEI with low QTF can mean more movement than progress—dangerous leverage when weak reasoning scales.

What the architecture protects

  • Telemetry is evidence, not ontology.
  • A model answer is not automatically an organizational commitment.
  • Evaluation readouts do not silently become semantic state.
  • The Workflow Value Ledger records what the evidence supports, including gaps and withheld claims.
  • Human authority remains outside the model.

Current maturity boundary

The current implementation contains bounded import, normalization, reference-path, ledger, query, MCP-contract, fixture, and regression slices. It does not yet contain a production enterprise platform with tenant isolation, deployment controls, authentication, a live adapter registry, or calibrated universal QTF and PEI scoring.

Reading rule: the diagram explains the intended system structure. The implementation scope matrix remains the authority for what is implemented, canonicalized, provisional, or excluded.

Continue the technical review

Return to Technical Foundation → Open the public resource index → Request controlled technical diligence materials →