kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols
Updated
•
439
•
8
kanaria007 PRO
kanaria007
AI & ML interests
None yet
Recent Activity
updated
a dataset
about 6 hours ago
kanaria007/agi-structural-intelligence-protocols
posted
an
update
1 day ago
✅ New Article: *Post-Transformer Decision Cores* (v0.1)
Title:
🚀 Post-Transformer Decision Cores: Goal-Native Engines Beyond LLMs
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/post-tranformer-decision-cores
---
Summary:
Transformers are powerful—but in SI-Core they’re *not the essence of intelligence*. A *Decision Core* is anything that satisfies the *Jump contracts* (OBS/ETH/MEM/ID/EVAL + RML), and those contracts don’t require next-token prediction.
This article sketches what “post-Transformer” looks like in practice: *goal-native, structure-aware controllers* that may use LLMs as tools—but don’t depend on them as the runtime brain.
> Don’t relax the contracts.
> Replace the engine behind them.
---
Why It Matters:
• Makes LLMs *optional*: shift them to “genesis / exploration / explanation,” while routine high-stakes Jumps run on structured cores
• Improves boring-but-critical properties: *determinism (CAS), fewer inconsistencies (SCI), fewer ETH violations (EAI), better rollback (RBL/RIR)*
• Enables gradual adoption via *pluggable Jump engines* and domain-by-domain “primary vs fallback” switching
---
What’s Inside:
• The architectural inversion: *World → OBS → SIM/SIS → Jump (Decision Core) → RML → Effects* (LLM is just one engine)
• Three compatible post-Transformer directions:
1. *World-model + search controllers* (MPC/MCTS/anytime search with explicit GCS + ETH constraints)
2. *Genius-distilled specialized controllers* (distill structure from GeniusTraces; LLM becomes a “genesis tool”)
3. *SIL-compiled Decision Programs* (typed Jump entrypoints, compiler-checked invariants, DPIR/GSPU targeting)
• A realistic migration path: LLM-wrapped → Genius library → shadow dual-run → flip primary by domain → SIL-compiled cores
• How this connects to “reproducing genius”: GRP provides trace selection/format; this article provides the engine architectures
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
posted
an
update
4 days ago
✅ New Article: *Genius Replay Protocol* (v0.1)
Title:
🧠 Genius Replay Protocol: Capturing and Replaying High-Value Jumps
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/genius-replay-protocol
---
Summary:
“Genius” isn’t magic—it’s a **high-value Jump (or short Jump sequence)** that reliably produces outsized GCS gains with strong robustness and reuse potential.
This article defines the **Genius Replay Protocol (GRP)**: a safe way to **capture, validate, store, and replay** those exceptional moves as reusable macro-intelligence—without turning them into copy-pasted folklore.
At the core is a **GeniusTrace** bundle: *ContextSignature* (where it applies) + *JumpSequence* (what was done) + *EvalSummary* (why it worked) + *EthicsTrace* (why it’s allowed).
> Don’t replay outcomes.
> Replay **structure**, under today’s constraints.
---
Why It Matters:
• Turns “it worked once” into a **reproducible asset**
• Prevents unsafe cargo-culting by replaying **structure**, not brittle outputs
• Ensures every replay is re-checked against **current ETH / goal surfaces / OBS requirements**
• Enables a pipeline: **automatic discovery → robustness checks → promotion**, not anecdote collection
---
What’s Inside:
• A concrete definition of “Genius” (GCS outliers + robustness + generalizability)
• The GeniusTrace schema: ContextSignature / JumpRecord / EvalSummary / EthicsTrace
• Three replay modes: **Exact / Structural / Suggestion** (human-facing)
• A **Replay Safety Checker**: context distance, under-observation, ETH compatibility, drift risk
• Operational patterns: policy bootstraps, incident recovery, cross-domain structural motifs
• Governance: re-validation cadence, fairness/privacy constraints, sharing + semantic redaction
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Organizations
updated
a
dataset
about 6 hours ago
posted
an
update
1 day ago
Post
1103
✅ New Article: *Post-Transformer Decision Cores* (v0.1)
Title:
🚀 Post-Transformer Decision Cores: Goal-Native Engines Beyond LLMs
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/post-tranformer-decision-cores
---
Summary:
Transformers are powerful—but in SI-Core they’re *not the essence of intelligence*. A *Decision Core* is anything that satisfies the *Jump contracts* (OBS/ETH/MEM/ID/EVAL + RML), and those contracts don’t require next-token prediction.
This article sketches what “post-Transformer” looks like in practice: *goal-native, structure-aware controllers* that may use LLMs as tools—but don’t depend on them as the runtime brain.
> Don’t relax the contracts.
> Replace the engine behind them.
---
Why It Matters:
• Makes LLMs *optional*: shift them to “genesis / exploration / explanation,” while routine high-stakes Jumps run on structured cores
• Improves boring-but-critical properties: *determinism (CAS), fewer inconsistencies (SCI), fewer ETH violations (EAI), better rollback (RBL/RIR)*
• Enables gradual adoption via *pluggable Jump engines* and domain-by-domain “primary vs fallback” switching
---
What’s Inside:
• The architectural inversion: *World → OBS → SIM/SIS → Jump (Decision Core) → RML → Effects* (LLM is just one engine)
• Three compatible post-Transformer directions:
1. *World-model + search controllers* (MPC/MCTS/anytime search with explicit GCS + ETH constraints)
2. *Genius-distilled specialized controllers* (distill structure from GeniusTraces; LLM becomes a “genesis tool”)
3. *SIL-compiled Decision Programs* (typed Jump entrypoints, compiler-checked invariants, DPIR/GSPU targeting)
• A realistic migration path: LLM-wrapped → Genius library → shadow dual-run → flip primary by domain → SIL-compiled cores
• How this connects to “reproducing genius”: GRP provides trace selection/format; this article provides the engine architectures
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Title:
🚀 Post-Transformer Decision Cores: Goal-Native Engines Beyond LLMs
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/post-tranformer-decision-cores
---
Summary:
Transformers are powerful—but in SI-Core they’re *not the essence of intelligence*. A *Decision Core* is anything that satisfies the *Jump contracts* (OBS/ETH/MEM/ID/EVAL + RML), and those contracts don’t require next-token prediction.
This article sketches what “post-Transformer” looks like in practice: *goal-native, structure-aware controllers* that may use LLMs as tools—but don’t depend on them as the runtime brain.
> Don’t relax the contracts.
> Replace the engine behind them.
---
Why It Matters:
• Makes LLMs *optional*: shift them to “genesis / exploration / explanation,” while routine high-stakes Jumps run on structured cores
• Improves boring-but-critical properties: *determinism (CAS), fewer inconsistencies (SCI), fewer ETH violations (EAI), better rollback (RBL/RIR)*
• Enables gradual adoption via *pluggable Jump engines* and domain-by-domain “primary vs fallback” switching
---
What’s Inside:
• The architectural inversion: *World → OBS → SIM/SIS → Jump (Decision Core) → RML → Effects* (LLM is just one engine)
• Three compatible post-Transformer directions:
1. *World-model + search controllers* (MPC/MCTS/anytime search with explicit GCS + ETH constraints)
2. *Genius-distilled specialized controllers* (distill structure from GeniusTraces; LLM becomes a “genesis tool”)
3. *SIL-compiled Decision Programs* (typed Jump entrypoints, compiler-checked invariants, DPIR/GSPU targeting)
• A realistic migration path: LLM-wrapped → Genius library → shadow dual-run → flip primary by domain → SIL-compiled cores
• How this connects to “reproducing genius”: GRP provides trace selection/format; this article provides the engine architectures
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
posted
an
update
4 days ago
Post
1069
✅ New Article: *Genius Replay Protocol* (v0.1)
Title:
🧠 Genius Replay Protocol: Capturing and Replaying High-Value Jumps
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/genius-replay-protocol
---
Summary:
“Genius” isn’t magic—it’s a **high-value Jump (or short Jump sequence)** that reliably produces outsized GCS gains with strong robustness and reuse potential.
This article defines the **Genius Replay Protocol (GRP)**: a safe way to **capture, validate, store, and replay** those exceptional moves as reusable macro-intelligence—without turning them into copy-pasted folklore.
At the core is a **GeniusTrace** bundle: *ContextSignature* (where it applies) + *JumpSequence* (what was done) + *EvalSummary* (why it worked) + *EthicsTrace* (why it’s allowed).
> Don’t replay outcomes.
> Replay **structure**, under today’s constraints.
---
Why It Matters:
• Turns “it worked once” into a **reproducible asset**
• Prevents unsafe cargo-culting by replaying **structure**, not brittle outputs
• Ensures every replay is re-checked against **current ETH / goal surfaces / OBS requirements**
• Enables a pipeline: **automatic discovery → robustness checks → promotion**, not anecdote collection
---
What’s Inside:
• A concrete definition of “Genius” (GCS outliers + robustness + generalizability)
• The GeniusTrace schema: ContextSignature / JumpRecord / EvalSummary / EthicsTrace
• Three replay modes: **Exact / Structural / Suggestion** (human-facing)
• A **Replay Safety Checker**: context distance, under-observation, ETH compatibility, drift risk
• Operational patterns: policy bootstraps, incident recovery, cross-domain structural motifs
• Governance: re-validation cadence, fairness/privacy constraints, sharing + semantic redaction
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Title:
🧠 Genius Replay Protocol: Capturing and Replaying High-Value Jumps
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/genius-replay-protocol
---
Summary:
“Genius” isn’t magic—it’s a **high-value Jump (or short Jump sequence)** that reliably produces outsized GCS gains with strong robustness and reuse potential.
This article defines the **Genius Replay Protocol (GRP)**: a safe way to **capture, validate, store, and replay** those exceptional moves as reusable macro-intelligence—without turning them into copy-pasted folklore.
At the core is a **GeniusTrace** bundle: *ContextSignature* (where it applies) + *JumpSequence* (what was done) + *EvalSummary* (why it worked) + *EthicsTrace* (why it’s allowed).
> Don’t replay outcomes.
> Replay **structure**, under today’s constraints.
---
Why It Matters:
• Turns “it worked once” into a **reproducible asset**
• Prevents unsafe cargo-culting by replaying **structure**, not brittle outputs
• Ensures every replay is re-checked against **current ETH / goal surfaces / OBS requirements**
• Enables a pipeline: **automatic discovery → robustness checks → promotion**, not anecdote collection
---
What’s Inside:
• A concrete definition of “Genius” (GCS outliers + robustness + generalizability)
• The GeniusTrace schema: ContextSignature / JumpRecord / EvalSummary / EthicsTrace
• Three replay modes: **Exact / Structural / Suggestion** (human-facing)
• A **Replay Safety Checker**: context distance, under-observation, ETH compatibility, drift risk
• Operational patterns: policy bootstraps, incident recovery, cross-domain structural motifs
• Governance: re-validation cadence, fairness/privacy constraints, sharing + semantic redaction
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
posted
an
update
5 days ago
Post
1862
✅ New Article: *Jumps as Atomic Moves* (v0.1)
Title:
🧠 Jumps: Atomic Moves in Structured Intelligence (and How to Make Them Safe)
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/jumps-atomic-moves-in-si
---
Summary:
In SI-Core, a *Jump* is the smallest *effectful* unit of reasoning+action: a move that consumes observations, proposes/chooses an action, and (optionally) commits results + memory updates.
This article makes Jumps operational: *what a Jump must declare*, how it is gated (OBS/ETH/RML), how it produces auditable traces, and how to keep it safe under uncertainty—without collapsing into “just prompt chaining.”
> If you can’t name the Jump, you can’t audit it.
> If you can’t gate it, you can’t ship it.
---
Why It Matters:
• Stops hidden behavior: every effectful move becomes *declared + inspectable*
• Prevents “jumping in the dark” via *OBS gating + sandbox-only paths*
• Makes policy enforceable: ETH overlay can *allow/modify/block/escalate* per Jump type
• Improves rollback reality: map Jump effects to *RML level*, not vibes
• Enables evaluation that matters: jump traces → *SCover / CAS / RIR / SCI* and failure taxonomy
---
What’s Inside:
• A practical Jump contract: inputs/required obs, scope, candidate generation, chooser policy, outputs, memory writes
• Gate sequence: *OBS → eval_pre → (sandbox) → ETH → commit → RML trace → ledger*
• Jump taxonomy: read-only / advisory / effectful / irreversible, and how to treat each
• Safety patterns: conservative defaults, human-in-loop, break-glass, and “publish_result=false” sandboxes
• Testing: golden traces, property tests, chaos drills, and “why this jump?” explainability hooks
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
this is the *how-to-implement / how-to-operate* layer for Jumps as atomic, auditable moves.
Title:
🧠 Jumps: Atomic Moves in Structured Intelligence (and How to Make Them Safe)
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/jumps-atomic-moves-in-si
---
Summary:
In SI-Core, a *Jump* is the smallest *effectful* unit of reasoning+action: a move that consumes observations, proposes/chooses an action, and (optionally) commits results + memory updates.
This article makes Jumps operational: *what a Jump must declare*, how it is gated (OBS/ETH/RML), how it produces auditable traces, and how to keep it safe under uncertainty—without collapsing into “just prompt chaining.”
> If you can’t name the Jump, you can’t audit it.
> If you can’t gate it, you can’t ship it.
---
Why It Matters:
• Stops hidden behavior: every effectful move becomes *declared + inspectable*
• Prevents “jumping in the dark” via *OBS gating + sandbox-only paths*
• Makes policy enforceable: ETH overlay can *allow/modify/block/escalate* per Jump type
• Improves rollback reality: map Jump effects to *RML level*, not vibes
• Enables evaluation that matters: jump traces → *SCover / CAS / RIR / SCI* and failure taxonomy
---
What’s Inside:
• A practical Jump contract: inputs/required obs, scope, candidate generation, chooser policy, outputs, memory writes
• Gate sequence: *OBS → eval_pre → (sandbox) → ETH → commit → RML trace → ledger*
• Jump taxonomy: read-only / advisory / effectful / irreversible, and how to treat each
• Safety patterns: conservative defaults, human-in-loop, break-glass, and “publish_result=false” sandboxes
• Testing: golden traces, property tests, chaos drills, and “why this jump?” explainability hooks
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
this is the *how-to-implement / how-to-operate* layer for Jumps as atomic, auditable moves.
posted
an
update
7 days ago
Post
867
✅ New Article: *Effectful Ops That Don’t Break the World* (v0.1)
Title:
🧾 Effectful Ops in SI-Core: RML and Compensator Patterns
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/effectful-ops-in-si-core
---
Summary:
Structured Intelligence systems don’t just *think*—they *change the world* (payments, bookings, city actuators, learning/medical records). In distributed reality, partial failures and retries are normal, so “do it once” is a myth.
This article is a practical cookbook for making effectful operations *retry-safe, reversible (when possible), and auditable*, using *RML levels (1→3)*, *Sagas + compensators*, and “single storyline” effect traces—then measuring quality via *RBL / RIR / SCI*.
> A compensator is *another effect*, not a magical “undo”.
---
Why It Matters:
• Prevents double-apply / half-committed states by defaulting to *idempotency + durable traces*
• Makes rollback *engineering-real*: compensators must be *idempotent*, monotone toward safety, and bounded to a durable terminal/pending state
• Handles “can’t undo” honestly: model *partial reversibility* + remaining risk + follow-up tasks
• Turns failure handling into metrics you can operate: *RBL (rollback latency), RIR (rollback integrity), SCI (structural inconsistencies)*
---
What’s Inside:
• RML levels overview: *RML-1 (idempotent effects)* → *RML-2 (Sagas/compensators)* → *RML-3 (goal-native reversible flow graphs)*
• Compensator patterns: idempotent refunds, append-only “compensating logs”, corrective/restitution effects
• Cross-domain templates (payments / reservations / city / learning) + common pitfalls (ghost holds, out-of-order msgs)
• A full walkthrough: partial success → compensate → re-plan & re-apply as *one coherent conversation with the world*
• Implementation path: effect records → idempotency → mini-sagas → metrics → lift critical flows toward RML-3
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
this is the *how-to-design / how-to-operate* layer for effectful systems.
Title:
🧾 Effectful Ops in SI-Core: RML and Compensator Patterns
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/effectful-ops-in-si-core
---
Summary:
Structured Intelligence systems don’t just *think*—they *change the world* (payments, bookings, city actuators, learning/medical records). In distributed reality, partial failures and retries are normal, so “do it once” is a myth.
This article is a practical cookbook for making effectful operations *retry-safe, reversible (when possible), and auditable*, using *RML levels (1→3)*, *Sagas + compensators*, and “single storyline” effect traces—then measuring quality via *RBL / RIR / SCI*.
> A compensator is *another effect*, not a magical “undo”.
---
Why It Matters:
• Prevents double-apply / half-committed states by defaulting to *idempotency + durable traces*
• Makes rollback *engineering-real*: compensators must be *idempotent*, monotone toward safety, and bounded to a durable terminal/pending state
• Handles “can’t undo” honestly: model *partial reversibility* + remaining risk + follow-up tasks
• Turns failure handling into metrics you can operate: *RBL (rollback latency), RIR (rollback integrity), SCI (structural inconsistencies)*
---
What’s Inside:
• RML levels overview: *RML-1 (idempotent effects)* → *RML-2 (Sagas/compensators)* → *RML-3 (goal-native reversible flow graphs)*
• Compensator patterns: idempotent refunds, append-only “compensating logs”, corrective/restitution effects
• Cross-domain templates (payments / reservations / city / learning) + common pitfalls (ghost holds, out-of-order msgs)
• A full walkthrough: partial success → compensate → re-plan & re-apply as *one coherent conversation with the world*
• Implementation path: effect records → idempotency → mini-sagas → metrics → lift critical flows toward RML-3
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
this is the *how-to-design / how-to-operate* layer for effectful systems.
posted
an
update
9 days ago
Post
1035
✅ New Article: *Designing Ethics Overlays* (v0.1)
Title:
🧩 Designing Ethics Overlays: Constraints, Appeals, and Sandboxes
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/designing-ethics-overlay
---
Summary:
“ETH” isn’t a content filter, and it isn’t just prompt hygiene.
This article frames *ethics as runtime governance for effectful actions*: an overlay that can *allow / modify / hard-block / escalate*, while emitting a *traceable EthicsTrace* you can audit and explain.
The key move is to treat safety/rights as *hard constraints or tight ε-bounds*, not a soft “ethics score” that gets traded off against convenience.
> Safety / basic rights are never “weighted-summed” against speed.
> They’re enforced—then you optimize inside the safe set.
---
Why It Matters:
• Prevents silent trade-offs (fairness/privacy/safety “lost in weights”)
• Makes “Why did it say no?” answerable via *machine-grade traces + human-grade explanations*
• Adds *appeals + controlled exceptions (break-glass)* so ETH doesn’t become unchallengeable authority
• Enables safe policy iteration with *ETH sandboxes* (replay/shadow/counterfactual), not blind prod tuning
• Gives operators real KPIs: block rate, appeal outcomes, false positives/negatives, fairness gaps, latency
---
What’s Inside:
• How ETH sits in the runtime loop (OBS → candidates → ETH overlay → RML)
• A layered rule model: *baseline (“never”) / context (“allowed if…”) / grey (“escalate”)*
• Concrete flows: appeal records, exception tokens, SLA-based review loops
• ETH sandbox patterns + an evaluation loop for policy changes
• Performance + failure handling (“hot path”, fail-safe) and common anti-patterns to avoid
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
this is the *how-to-design / how-to-operate* layer for ETH overlays that survive real-world governance.
Title:
🧩 Designing Ethics Overlays: Constraints, Appeals, and Sandboxes
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/designing-ethics-overlay
---
Summary:
“ETH” isn’t a content filter, and it isn’t just prompt hygiene.
This article frames *ethics as runtime governance for effectful actions*: an overlay that can *allow / modify / hard-block / escalate*, while emitting a *traceable EthicsTrace* you can audit and explain.
The key move is to treat safety/rights as *hard constraints or tight ε-bounds*, not a soft “ethics score” that gets traded off against convenience.
> Safety / basic rights are never “weighted-summed” against speed.
> They’re enforced—then you optimize inside the safe set.
---
Why It Matters:
• Prevents silent trade-offs (fairness/privacy/safety “lost in weights”)
• Makes “Why did it say no?” answerable via *machine-grade traces + human-grade explanations*
• Adds *appeals + controlled exceptions (break-glass)* so ETH doesn’t become unchallengeable authority
• Enables safe policy iteration with *ETH sandboxes* (replay/shadow/counterfactual), not blind prod tuning
• Gives operators real KPIs: block rate, appeal outcomes, false positives/negatives, fairness gaps, latency
---
What’s Inside:
• How ETH sits in the runtime loop (OBS → candidates → ETH overlay → RML)
• A layered rule model: *baseline (“never”) / context (“allowed if…”) / grey (“escalate”)*
• Concrete flows: appeal records, exception tokens, SLA-based review loops
• ETH sandbox patterns + an evaluation loop for policy changes
• Performance + failure handling (“hot path”, fail-safe) and common anti-patterns to avoid
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
this is the *how-to-design / how-to-operate* layer for ETH overlays that survive real-world governance.
posted
an
update
11 days ago
Post
2492
✅ New Article: *Observations, Under-Observation, and Repair Loops* (v0.1)
Title:
👁️ Observations, Under-Observation, and Repair Loops: The OBS Cookbook for SI-Core
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/observations-under-observation
---
Summary:
SI-Core’s rule is simple: *No effectful Jump without PARSED observations.*
This article turns that slogan into an operational design: define *observation units* (sem_type/scope/status/confidence/backing_refs), detect *under-observation* (missing / degraded / biased), and run *repair loops* instead of “jumping in the dark.”
Key clarification: under-observed conditions may still run *read / eval_pre / jump-sandbox*, but must not commit or publish (sandbox:
---
Why It Matters:
• Prevents “we had logs, so we had context” failures: *logs ≠ observations* unless typed + contract-checked
• Makes safety real: even PARSED observations should be gated by *coverage/confidence minima* (declared thresholds)
• Turns OBS into something measurable: *SCover_obs + SInt* become “OBS health” and safe-mode triggers
• Links semantic compression to reality: distinguish *missing raw* vs *compression loss*, and fix the right thing
---
What’s Inside:
• A practical observation-status taxonomy:
• Per-jump *observation contracts* (required sem_types, allowed statuses, age/confidence limits) + explicit fallback actions
• Fallback patterns: *safe-mode / conservative default / sandbox-only / human-in-loop*
• Repair loops as first-class: ledgered
• Testing OBS itself: property tests, chaos drills, golden-diff for observation streams
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
this is the *“how to operate OBS”* layer—so the system can *know when it doesn’t know* and repair over time.
Title:
👁️ Observations, Under-Observation, and Repair Loops: The OBS Cookbook for SI-Core
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/observations-under-observation
---
Summary:
SI-Core’s rule is simple: *No effectful Jump without PARSED observations.*
This article turns that slogan into an operational design: define *observation units* (sem_type/scope/status/confidence/backing_refs), detect *under-observation* (missing / degraded / biased), and run *repair loops* instead of “jumping in the dark.”
Key clarification: under-observed conditions may still run *read / eval_pre / jump-sandbox*, but must not commit or publish (sandbox:
publish_result=false, memory_writes=disabled).---
Why It Matters:
• Prevents “we had logs, so we had context” failures: *logs ≠ observations* unless typed + contract-checked
• Makes safety real: even PARSED observations should be gated by *coverage/confidence minima* (declared thresholds)
• Turns OBS into something measurable: *SCover_obs + SInt* become “OBS health” and safe-mode triggers
• Links semantic compression to reality: distinguish *missing raw* vs *compression loss*, and fix the right thing
---
What’s Inside:
• A practical observation-status taxonomy:
PARSED / DEGRADED / STUB / ESTIMATED / MISSING / REDACTED / INVALID (+ mapping to core status)• Per-jump *observation contracts* (required sem_types, allowed statuses, age/confidence limits) + explicit fallback actions
• Fallback patterns: *safe-mode / conservative default / sandbox-only / human-in-loop*
• Repair loops as first-class: ledgered
obs.repair_request, PLB proposals, governance review for contract changes• Testing OBS itself: property tests, chaos drills, golden-diff for observation streams
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
this is the *“how to operate OBS”* layer—so the system can *know when it doesn’t know* and repair over time.
posted
an
update
13 days ago
Post
180
✅ New Article: *Designing Goal-Native Algorithms* (v0.1)
Title:
🎯 Designing Goal-Native Algorithms: From Heuristics to GCS
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/designing-goal-native-algorithms
---
Summary:
Most systems still run on “Inputs → model/heuristic → single score → action”.
But real deployments have multiple goals plus non-negotiable constraints (safety, ethics, legal).
This article is a design cookbook for migrating to goal-native control: make the goal surface explicit as a **GCS vector**, enforce **hard constraints first**, then trade off soft objectives inside the safe set.
> The primary object is a GCS vector + constraint status — not a naked scalar score.
---
Why It Matters:
• Stops safety/fairness from becoming silently tradable via “mystery weights”
• Makes trade-offs auditable: “why this action now?” can be reconstructed via Effect Ledger logging
• Gives a repeatable build flow: goals → constraints → action space → GCS estimator → chooser
• Shows how to ship safely: shadow mode → thresholds → canary, with SI metrics (CAS/SCover/EAI/RIR)
---
What’s Inside:
• A recommended GCS convention (higher=better, scales documented, weights only for soft goals)
• Chooser patterns: lexicographic tiers, Pareto frontier, context-weighted tie-breaks
• Practical patterns: rule-based+GCS wrapper, safe bandits, planning/scheduling, RL with guardrails
• Migration path from legacy heuristics + common anti-patterns (single-scalar collapse, no ledger, no PLB/RML)
• Performance tips: pruning, caching, hybrid estimators, parallel evaluation
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Formal contracts live in SI-Core / GCS specs and the eval packs; this is the *how-to-design / how-to-migrate* layer.
Title:
🎯 Designing Goal-Native Algorithms: From Heuristics to GCS
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/designing-goal-native-algorithms
---
Summary:
Most systems still run on “Inputs → model/heuristic → single score → action”.
But real deployments have multiple goals plus non-negotiable constraints (safety, ethics, legal).
This article is a design cookbook for migrating to goal-native control: make the goal surface explicit as a **GCS vector**, enforce **hard constraints first**, then trade off soft objectives inside the safe set.
> The primary object is a GCS vector + constraint status — not a naked scalar score.
---
Why It Matters:
• Stops safety/fairness from becoming silently tradable via “mystery weights”
• Makes trade-offs auditable: “why this action now?” can be reconstructed via Effect Ledger logging
• Gives a repeatable build flow: goals → constraints → action space → GCS estimator → chooser
• Shows how to ship safely: shadow mode → thresholds → canary, with SI metrics (CAS/SCover/EAI/RIR)
---
What’s Inside:
• A recommended GCS convention (higher=better, scales documented, weights only for soft goals)
• Chooser patterns: lexicographic tiers, Pareto frontier, context-weighted tie-breaks
• Practical patterns: rule-based+GCS wrapper, safe bandits, planning/scheduling, RL with guardrails
• Migration path from legacy heuristics + common anti-patterns (single-scalar collapse, no ledger, no PLB/RML)
• Performance tips: pruning, caching, hybrid estimators, parallel evaluation
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Formal contracts live in SI-Core / GCS specs and the eval packs; this is the *how-to-design / how-to-migrate* layer.
replied to
their
post
14 days ago
Thanks a lot — this is exactly the kind of feedback I want.
You’re right: the standalone SIM/SIS write-up was intentionally crisp on auditability, but light on “fuzzy semantics” as an explicit operational pattern (belief updates, contradictions, uncertainty, and mind-changing over time).
Across the broader art-60 series (100+ articles and still expanding), many of those building blocks already exist — I’m doing ongoing small alignment edits to keep terminology and contracts consistent, but the high-level architecture hasn’t changed.
Based on your comment, I did two things:
- I updated the SIM/SIS article(art-60-028) to make the missing connective tissue visible in one place:
- Belief revision / contradictions: append-only units + explicit supersedes/retracts/contradicts links (no silent overwrite).
- Hybrid retrieval: embeddings as a sidecar for candidate generation → resolve to semantic-unit IDs → apply deterministic policy/jurisdiction filters.
- Origin typing: clearer provenance patterns for sensor-derived vs LLM-proposed vs human-attested units.
- And I wrote a dedicated follow-up: art-60-108, focused specifically on belief revision on SIM/SIS (retractions, contradictions, uncertainty, and revision bundles) while keeping everything reconstructible.
posted
an
update
15 days ago
Post
2048
✅ New Article: Designing Semantic Memory (v0.1)
Title:
🧠 Designing Semantic Memory: SIM/SIS Patterns for Real Systems
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/designing-semantic-memory
---
Summary:
Semantic Compression is about *what meaning to keep*.
This article is about *where that meaning lives*—and how to keep it *queryable, explainable, and governable* using two layers:
* *SIM*: operational semantic memory (low-latency, recent, jump-loop-adjacent)
* *SIS*: archival/analytic semantic store (long retention, heavy queries, audits)
Core idea: store “meaning” as *typed semantic units* with scope, provenance, goal tags, retention, and *backing_refs* (URI/hash/ledger anchors) so you can answer *“why did we do X?”* without turning memory into a blob.
---
Why It Matters:
• Prevents “semantic junk drawer” memory: *units become contracts*, not vibes
• Makes audits and incidents tractable: *reconstruct semantic context* (L3-grade)
• Preserves reversibility/accountability with *backing_refs*, even under redaction
• Adds semantic health checks: *SCover_sem / SInt / LAR_sem* (memory that stays reliable)
---
What’s Inside:
• Minimal *semantic_unit* schema you can run on relational/doc/graph backends
• Query/index playbook: ops (L1/L2) vs evidence/audit (L3)
• Domain patterns (CityOS / OSS supply chain / learning-support)
• Migration path: sidecar writer → low-risk reads → SI-Core integration
• Failure modes & anti-patterns: missing backing_refs, over-eager redaction, SIM-as-cache, etc.
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Formal contracts live in the spec/eval packs; this is the *how-to-model / how-to-operate* layer for semantic memory that can survive real audits and real failures.
Title:
🧠 Designing Semantic Memory: SIM/SIS Patterns for Real Systems
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/designing-semantic-memory
---
Summary:
Semantic Compression is about *what meaning to keep*.
This article is about *where that meaning lives*—and how to keep it *queryable, explainable, and governable* using two layers:
* *SIM*: operational semantic memory (low-latency, recent, jump-loop-adjacent)
* *SIS*: archival/analytic semantic store (long retention, heavy queries, audits)
Core idea: store “meaning” as *typed semantic units* with scope, provenance, goal tags, retention, and *backing_refs* (URI/hash/ledger anchors) so you can answer *“why did we do X?”* without turning memory into a blob.
---
Why It Matters:
• Prevents “semantic junk drawer” memory: *units become contracts*, not vibes
• Makes audits and incidents tractable: *reconstruct semantic context* (L3-grade)
• Preserves reversibility/accountability with *backing_refs*, even under redaction
• Adds semantic health checks: *SCover_sem / SInt / LAR_sem* (memory that stays reliable)
---
What’s Inside:
• Minimal *semantic_unit* schema you can run on relational/doc/graph backends
• Query/index playbook: ops (L1/L2) vs evidence/audit (L3)
• Domain patterns (CityOS / OSS supply chain / learning-support)
• Migration path: sidecar writer → low-risk reads → SI-Core integration
• Failure modes & anti-patterns: missing backing_refs, over-eager redaction, SIM-as-cache, etc.
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Formal contracts live in the spec/eval packs; this is the *how-to-model / how-to-operate* layer for semantic memory that can survive real audits and real failures.
-
- 2 replies
posted
an
update
17 days ago
Post
2216
✅ New Article: *Designing, Safeguarding, and Evaluating Learning Companions* (v0.1)
Title:
🛡️ Designing, Safeguarding, and Evaluating SI-Core Learning Companions
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/designing-safeguarding-and-evaluating
---
Summary:
Most “AI tutoring” talks about prompts, content, and engagement graphs.
But real learning companions—especially for children / ND learners—fail in quieter ways: *the system “works” while stress rises, agency drops, or fairness erodes.*
This article is a practical playbook for building SI-Core–wrapped learning companions that are *goal-aware (GCS surfaces), safety-bounded (ETH guardrails), and honestly evaluated (PoC → real-world studies)*—without collapsing everything into a single score.
> Mastery is important, but not the only axis.
> *Wellbeing, autonomy, and fairness must be first-class.*
---
Why It Matters:
• Replaces “one number” optimization with *goal surfaces* (and explicit anti-goals)
• Treats *child/ND safety* as a runtime policy problem, not a UX afterthought
• Makes oversight concrete: *safe-mode, human-in-the-loop, and “Why did it do X?” explanations*
• Shows how to evaluate impact without fooling yourself: *honest PoCs, heterogeneity, effect sizes, ethics of evaluation*
---
What’s Inside:
• A practical definition of a “learning companion” under SI-Core ([OBS]/[ID]/[ETH]/[MEM]/PLB loop)
• GCS decomposition + *age/context goal templates* (and “bad but attractive” optima)
• Safety playbook: threat model, *ETH policies*, ND/age extensions, safe-mode patterns
• Teacher/parent ops: onboarding, dashboards, contestation/override, downtime playbooks, comms
• Red-teaming & drills: scenario suites by age/context, *measuring safety over time*
• Evaluation design: “honest PoC”, day-to-day vs research metrics, ROI framing, analysis patterns
• Interpreting results: *effect size vs p-value*, “works for whom?”, go/no-go and scale-up stages
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Title:
🛡️ Designing, Safeguarding, and Evaluating SI-Core Learning Companions
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/designing-safeguarding-and-evaluating
---
Summary:
Most “AI tutoring” talks about prompts, content, and engagement graphs.
But real learning companions—especially for children / ND learners—fail in quieter ways: *the system “works” while stress rises, agency drops, or fairness erodes.*
This article is a practical playbook for building SI-Core–wrapped learning companions that are *goal-aware (GCS surfaces), safety-bounded (ETH guardrails), and honestly evaluated (PoC → real-world studies)*—without collapsing everything into a single score.
> Mastery is important, but not the only axis.
> *Wellbeing, autonomy, and fairness must be first-class.*
---
Why It Matters:
• Replaces “one number” optimization with *goal surfaces* (and explicit anti-goals)
• Treats *child/ND safety* as a runtime policy problem, not a UX afterthought
• Makes oversight concrete: *safe-mode, human-in-the-loop, and “Why did it do X?” explanations*
• Shows how to evaluate impact without fooling yourself: *honest PoCs, heterogeneity, effect sizes, ethics of evaluation*
---
What’s Inside:
• A practical definition of a “learning companion” under SI-Core ([OBS]/[ID]/[ETH]/[MEM]/PLB loop)
• GCS decomposition + *age/context goal templates* (and “bad but attractive” optima)
• Safety playbook: threat model, *ETH policies*, ND/age extensions, safe-mode patterns
• Teacher/parent ops: onboarding, dashboards, contestation/override, downtime playbooks, comms
• Red-teaming & drills: scenario suites by age/context, *measuring safety over time*
• Evaluation design: “honest PoC”, day-to-day vs research metrics, ROI framing, analysis patterns
• Interpreting results: *effect size vs p-value*, “works for whom?”, go/no-go and scale-up stages
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
posted
an
update
18 days ago
Post
496
✅ New Article: *Measuring What Matters in Learning* (v0.1)
Title:
📏 Measuring What Matters in Learning: GCS and Metrics for Support Systems
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/measuring-what-matters-in-learning
---
Summary:
Most “AI for education” metrics measure *grades, time-on-task, and engagement*.
That’s not enough for *support systems* (tutors, developmental assistants, social-skills coaches), where the real failure mode is: *the score goes up while the learner breaks*.
This guide reframes learning evaluation as *multi-goal contribution*, tracked as a *GCS vector* (mastery, retention, wellbeing/load, self-efficacy, autonomy, fairness, safety) — and shows how to operationalize it without falling into classic metric traps.
> If you can’t measure wellbeing, fairness, and safety,
> you’re not measuring learning — you’re measuring extraction.
---
Why It Matters:
• Moves beyond “grading” into *support metrics* designed for real learners
• Makes *wellbeing, autonomy, fairness, and safety* first-class (not afterthoughts)
• Separates *daily ops metrics* vs *research evaluation* vs *governance/safety*
• Turns “explainability” into *answerable questions* (“why this intervention, now?”)
---
What’s Inside:
• A practical *GCS vector* for learning & developmental support
• How core metrics translate into education contexts (plan consistency, trace coverage, rollback health)
• A tiered metric taxonomy: *Ops / Research / Safety*
• Parent-facing views that avoid shaming, leaderboards, and over-monitoring
• Pitfalls and failure patterns: “optimize test scores”, “maximize engagement”, “ignore fairness”, etc.
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Formal contracts live in the evaluation/spec documents; this is the *how-to-think / how-to-use* layer.
Title:
📏 Measuring What Matters in Learning: GCS and Metrics for Support Systems
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/measuring-what-matters-in-learning
---
Summary:
Most “AI for education” metrics measure *grades, time-on-task, and engagement*.
That’s not enough for *support systems* (tutors, developmental assistants, social-skills coaches), where the real failure mode is: *the score goes up while the learner breaks*.
This guide reframes learning evaluation as *multi-goal contribution*, tracked as a *GCS vector* (mastery, retention, wellbeing/load, self-efficacy, autonomy, fairness, safety) — and shows how to operationalize it without falling into classic metric traps.
> If you can’t measure wellbeing, fairness, and safety,
> you’re not measuring learning — you’re measuring extraction.
---
Why It Matters:
• Moves beyond “grading” into *support metrics* designed for real learners
• Makes *wellbeing, autonomy, fairness, and safety* first-class (not afterthoughts)
• Separates *daily ops metrics* vs *research evaluation* vs *governance/safety*
• Turns “explainability” into *answerable questions* (“why this intervention, now?”)
---
What’s Inside:
• A practical *GCS vector* for learning & developmental support
• How core metrics translate into education contexts (plan consistency, trace coverage, rollback health)
• A tiered metric taxonomy: *Ops / Research / Safety*
• Parent-facing views that avoid shaming, leaderboards, and over-monitoring
• Pitfalls and failure patterns: “optimize test scores”, “maximize engagement”, “ignore fairness”, etc.
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Formal contracts live in the evaluation/spec documents; this is the *how-to-think / how-to-use* layer.
posted
an
update
19 days ago
Post
1994
✅ New Article: *PoC Architecture for Education & Developmental Support*
Title:
🎓 Building an SI-Core Wrapped Learning Companion - PoC architecture for education and developmental support
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/poc-architecture-for-education-development-support
---
Summary:
Most “AI tutors” are built as *LLM-first* systems. This article flips the default:
* The LLM is treated as an *untrusted proposal engine*
* *SI-Core owns* observation, consent, ethics, memory, and rollback
* Teachers and guardians get *real oversight*, not just chat transcripts
Scoped intentionally to *one subject × a small cohort (10–30 learners)*, this is a PoC you can actually ship—and audit.
> Don’t ask: “Can an AI replace teachers?”
> Prove: “Can we make an AI companion *safe, explainable, and governable* for real learners?”
---
Why It Matters (for AI on real stacks):
• *Consent & accommodations* are first-class (especially for minors / neurodivergent learners)
• *Ethics decisions are logged* (ALLOW / DENY / ESCALATE) with traceable reasoning
• “*Why this?*” explanations are built in for learners—and deeper inspection for adults
---
What’s Inside:
• A minimal reference architecture (frontend → SI-Gate → ethics/memory/logging → LLM APIs)
• Non-negotiables for the pilot (SI-wrapped LLM, Effect Ledger, ethics overlay, dashboards)
• Failure modes + safe-mode behavior
• Implementation checklist + rough effort/cost ballparks (kept explicitly non-normative)
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
A deployable pattern for taking today’s LLM tutor ideas and making them *auditable, overrideable, and rollback-safe*.
Title:
🎓 Building an SI-Core Wrapped Learning Companion - PoC architecture for education and developmental support
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/poc-architecture-for-education-development-support
---
Summary:
Most “AI tutors” are built as *LLM-first* systems. This article flips the default:
* The LLM is treated as an *untrusted proposal engine*
* *SI-Core owns* observation, consent, ethics, memory, and rollback
* Teachers and guardians get *real oversight*, not just chat transcripts
Scoped intentionally to *one subject × a small cohort (10–30 learners)*, this is a PoC you can actually ship—and audit.
> Don’t ask: “Can an AI replace teachers?”
> Prove: “Can we make an AI companion *safe, explainable, and governable* for real learners?”
---
Why It Matters (for AI on real stacks):
• *Consent & accommodations* are first-class (especially for minors / neurodivergent learners)
• *Ethics decisions are logged* (ALLOW / DENY / ESCALATE) with traceable reasoning
• “*Why this?*” explanations are built in for learners—and deeper inspection for adults
---
What’s Inside:
• A minimal reference architecture (frontend → SI-Gate → ethics/memory/logging → LLM APIs)
• Non-negotiables for the pilot (SI-wrapped LLM, Effect Ledger, ethics overlay, dashboards)
• Failure modes + safe-mode behavior
• Implementation checklist + rough effort/cost ballparks (kept explicitly non-normative)
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
A deployable pattern for taking today’s LLM tutor ideas and making them *auditable, overrideable, and rollback-safe*.
posted
an
update
21 days ago
Post
157
✅ New Article: *SI-Core for Individualized Learning & Developmental Support*
Title:
🎒 SI-Core for Individualized Learning and Developmental Support - From Raw Logs to Goal-Aware Support Plans
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/individualized-learning-and-developmental-support
---
Summary:
Most “AI in education/support” stacks optimize shallow outputs (scores, clicks) and lose the *why*: goals, trade-offs, and safety.
This guide reframes learning & developmental support as an *auditable, multi-goal system*—where every intervention is logged as an effect, evaluated against goal trajectories, and constrained by runtime ethics.
> Learners aren’t numbers to optimize —
> they’re agents with goals, dignity, and long histories.
---
Why It Matters:
• Turns tutoring/support into *goal-aware planning*, not content roulette
• Makes decisions *explainable* (“Why this activity?”) with evidence trails
• Adds *runtime ethics* for vulnerable learners (fatigue, dignity, bias, consent)
• Enables improvement over time via *governed pattern learning*, not silent drift
---
What’s Inside:
• Goal surfaces + how to define “success” without collapsing into a single score
• Effect Ledger design: *what we did, why, under which constraints, and what happened*
• Practical ethics constraints for children / developmental differences
• Human-in-the-loop workflows: dashboards, contestation, approvals
• Integration patterns: assessments, IEP/MTSS/RTI, privacy/erasure alignment
• A phased migration path from today’s LLM tutors to SI-wrapped support systems
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
This isn’t “AI replaces teachers/therapists.” It’s *AI that can be supervised, questioned, audited, and improved safely*—in the places where that matters most.
Title:
🎒 SI-Core for Individualized Learning and Developmental Support - From Raw Logs to Goal-Aware Support Plans
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/individualized-learning-and-developmental-support
---
Summary:
Most “AI in education/support” stacks optimize shallow outputs (scores, clicks) and lose the *why*: goals, trade-offs, and safety.
This guide reframes learning & developmental support as an *auditable, multi-goal system*—where every intervention is logged as an effect, evaluated against goal trajectories, and constrained by runtime ethics.
> Learners aren’t numbers to optimize —
> they’re agents with goals, dignity, and long histories.
---
Why It Matters:
• Turns tutoring/support into *goal-aware planning*, not content roulette
• Makes decisions *explainable* (“Why this activity?”) with evidence trails
• Adds *runtime ethics* for vulnerable learners (fatigue, dignity, bias, consent)
• Enables improvement over time via *governed pattern learning*, not silent drift
---
What’s Inside:
• Goal surfaces + how to define “success” without collapsing into a single score
• Effect Ledger design: *what we did, why, under which constraints, and what happened*
• Practical ethics constraints for children / developmental differences
• Human-in-the-loop workflows: dashboards, contestation, approvals
• Integration patterns: assessments, IEP/MTSS/RTI, privacy/erasure alignment
• A phased migration path from today’s LLM tutors to SI-wrapped support systems
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
This isn’t “AI replaces teachers/therapists.” It’s *AI that can be supervised, questioned, audited, and improved safely*—in the places where that matters most.
published
an
article
21 days ago
Article
SI-Core for Individualized Learning and Developmental Support - From Raw Logs to Goal-Aware Support Plans
•
2
posted
an
update
23 days ago
Post
2019
✅ New Article: *Operating an SI-Core (v0.1)*
Title:
🛠️ Operating SI-Core: Dashboards, Playbooks, and Human Loops
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/operating-si-core
---
Summary:
Designing an SI-Core is only half the job — the other half is *running it safely at 03:00*.
This guide is a *non-normative ops runbook* for SRE/Ops teams and governance owners: what to put on the *one-page dashboard*, how to wire *alerts → actions*, when to use *safe-mode*, and how to answer the question that always arrives after an incident:
> “Why did the system do *that*?”
---
Why It Matters:
• Turns “auditable AI” into *operational reality* (not a slide deck)
• Makes *ethics + rollback* measurable, actionable, and drillable
• Clarifies how humans stay in the loop without becoming the bottleneck
• Provides templates for *postmortems, escalation, and regulator-grade explanations*
---
What’s Inside:
*Core Ops Dashboard (1 page):*
• Determinism/consistency, ethics/oversight, rollback/recovery, coverage/audit — with drill-downs that reach offending decisions in *two clicks*
*Alert → Runbook Patterns:*
• Examples for ethics index drops and rollback latency degradation
• Stabilization actions, scoped safe-mode, and governance handoffs
*Human-in-Loop Operations:*
• Safe-mode scopes (domain/tenant/region/risk)
• “Why?” view for any effectful action (structured explanation export)
*Reliability Muscle:*
• Incident templates, chaos drills, on-call handoffs, and capacity planning (because SI-Core accumulates structure over time)
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
A field manual for keeping structured intelligence upright — and explainable — under real-world pressure.
Title:
🛠️ Operating SI-Core: Dashboards, Playbooks, and Human Loops
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/operating-si-core
---
Summary:
Designing an SI-Core is only half the job — the other half is *running it safely at 03:00*.
This guide is a *non-normative ops runbook* for SRE/Ops teams and governance owners: what to put on the *one-page dashboard*, how to wire *alerts → actions*, when to use *safe-mode*, and how to answer the question that always arrives after an incident:
> “Why did the system do *that*?”
---
Why It Matters:
• Turns “auditable AI” into *operational reality* (not a slide deck)
• Makes *ethics + rollback* measurable, actionable, and drillable
• Clarifies how humans stay in the loop without becoming the bottleneck
• Provides templates for *postmortems, escalation, and regulator-grade explanations*
---
What’s Inside:
*Core Ops Dashboard (1 page):*
• Determinism/consistency, ethics/oversight, rollback/recovery, coverage/audit — with drill-downs that reach offending decisions in *two clicks*
*Alert → Runbook Patterns:*
• Examples for ethics index drops and rollback latency degradation
• Stabilization actions, scoped safe-mode, and governance handoffs
*Human-in-Loop Operations:*
• Safe-mode scopes (domain/tenant/region/risk)
• “Why?” view for any effectful action (structured explanation export)
*Reliability Muscle:*
• Incident templates, chaos drills, on-call handoffs, and capacity planning (because SI-Core accumulates structure over time)
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
A field manual for keeping structured intelligence upright — and explainable — under real-world pressure.
posted
an
update
24 days ago
Post
197
✅ New Article: *From Effect Ledger to Goal-Aware Training Data*
Title:
🧾 From Effect Ledger to Goal-Aware Training Data — How SI-Core turns runtime experience into safer models
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/effect-ledger-to-training
---
*Summary:*
Most ML pipelines treat “training data” as an opaque byproduct of logs + ETL.
SI-Core flips that: runtime experience is already structured (observations, decisions, effects, goals, ethics traces), so learning can be *goal-aware by construction* — and *auditable end-to-end*.
> Models don’t just learn from data.
> They learn from *traceable decisions with consequences.*
---
*Why It Matters:*
• *Provable lineage:* answer “what did this model learn from?” with ledger-backed evidence
• *Safer learning loops:* labels come from realized goal outcomes (not ad-hoc annotation)
• *Governance-native training:* ethics and risk are first-class signals, not bolt-ons
• *Redaction-compatible ML:* erasure/remediation ties back to the same ledger fabric
• *Real deployment gates:* rollout is constrained by system metrics, not leaderboard scores
---
*What’s Inside:*
• A clean mental model: *event / episode / aggregate* layers for SI-native learning data
• How to define training tasks in *goal + horizon* terms (and derive labels from GCS/rollback signals)
• A practical ETL sketch: extract → join → label → filter → splits (with SI-native filters like OCR)
• Continual/online learning patterns with *automatic rollback on degradation*
• Distributed learning with *federation + DP*, bounded by governance scopes
• Lineage + audit templates: from a trained model *back to the exact ledger slices* it used
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
A practical bridge from “structured runtime” to *goal-aware training* you can explain, govern, and repair.
Title:
🧾 From Effect Ledger to Goal-Aware Training Data — How SI-Core turns runtime experience into safer models
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/effect-ledger-to-training
---
*Summary:*
Most ML pipelines treat “training data” as an opaque byproduct of logs + ETL.
SI-Core flips that: runtime experience is already structured (observations, decisions, effects, goals, ethics traces), so learning can be *goal-aware by construction* — and *auditable end-to-end*.
> Models don’t just learn from data.
> They learn from *traceable decisions with consequences.*
---
*Why It Matters:*
• *Provable lineage:* answer “what did this model learn from?” with ledger-backed evidence
• *Safer learning loops:* labels come from realized goal outcomes (not ad-hoc annotation)
• *Governance-native training:* ethics and risk are first-class signals, not bolt-ons
• *Redaction-compatible ML:* erasure/remediation ties back to the same ledger fabric
• *Real deployment gates:* rollout is constrained by system metrics, not leaderboard scores
---
*What’s Inside:*
• A clean mental model: *event / episode / aggregate* layers for SI-native learning data
• How to define training tasks in *goal + horizon* terms (and derive labels from GCS/rollback signals)
• A practical ETL sketch: extract → join → label → filter → splits (with SI-native filters like OCR)
• Continual/online learning patterns with *automatic rollback on degradation*
• Distributed learning with *federation + DP*, bounded by governance scopes
• Lineage + audit templates: from a trained model *back to the exact ledger slices* it used
---
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
A practical bridge from “structured runtime” to *goal-aware training* you can explain, govern, and repair.
published
an
article
24 days ago
Article
From Effect Ledger to Goal-Aware Training Data
posted
an
update
25 days ago
Post
187
✅ New Article: *Proving Your SIL Code Behaves*
Title:
🧪 Proving Your SIL Code Behaves - Property Tests and Structured Checks for SIL / SIR / sirrev
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/proving-your-sil-code
---
Summary:
SIL is meant to make decision logic *auditable* — but you still need a practical way to say: *“this code still behaves, and we can show you why.”*
This mini-guide is a *non-normative* “Hello, Structured Testing” playbook for SIL: turn domain rules into QuickCheck-style properties, wire SIR/*sirrev* into structural checks, and run it all in CI like SIL patches are potentially dangerous code.
> Tests aren’t a vibe.
> *They’re part of the structured stack.*
---
Why It Matters:
• Makes “trustworthy decision code” achievable for normal engineers (without turning everyone into a formal methods specialist).
• Separates what to test at each layer (*SIL → SIR → sirrev*) so you can catch semantic drift, compiler regressions, and structural weirdness early.
• Connects local tests to global system signals (e.g., determinism / consistency / coverage), so “testing” feeds the same measurement language as the rest of the SI stack.
---
What’s Inside:
*Foundation stack:*
• Mental model: *SIL → SIR → sirrev → metrics* (and why each needs different checks).
*Practical recipes:*
• Property tests for invariants (bounds, monotonicity, determinism).
• Golden diffs for SIR (did the compiler preserve meaning?).
• sirrev structural checks (no nondet in DET, effects guarded by CON, balanced frames).
*Escalation ladder (when you need stronger guarantees):*
• V1 property testing → V2 symbolic execution → V3 SMT → V4 theorem proving (and when to climb).
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
Title:
🧪 Proving Your SIL Code Behaves - Property Tests and Structured Checks for SIL / SIR / sirrev
🔗 https://huggingface.co/blog/kanaria007/proving-your-sil-code
---
Summary:
SIL is meant to make decision logic *auditable* — but you still need a practical way to say: *“this code still behaves, and we can show you why.”*
This mini-guide is a *non-normative* “Hello, Structured Testing” playbook for SIL: turn domain rules into QuickCheck-style properties, wire SIR/*sirrev* into structural checks, and run it all in CI like SIL patches are potentially dangerous code.
> Tests aren’t a vibe.
> *They’re part of the structured stack.*
---
Why It Matters:
• Makes “trustworthy decision code” achievable for normal engineers (without turning everyone into a formal methods specialist).
• Separates what to test at each layer (*SIL → SIR → sirrev*) so you can catch semantic drift, compiler regressions, and structural weirdness early.
• Connects local tests to global system signals (e.g., determinism / consistency / coverage), so “testing” feeds the same measurement language as the rest of the SI stack.
---
What’s Inside:
*Foundation stack:*
• Mental model: *SIL → SIR → sirrev → metrics* (and why each needs different checks).
*Practical recipes:*
• Property tests for invariants (bounds, monotonicity, determinism).
• Golden diffs for SIR (did the compiler preserve meaning?).
• sirrev structural checks (no nondet in DET, effects guarded by CON, balanced frames).
*Escalation ladder (when you need stronger guarantees):*
• V1 property testing → V2 symbolic execution → V3 SMT → V4 theorem proving (and when to climb).
📖 Structured Intelligence Engineering Series
published
an
article
25 days ago
Article
Proving Your SIL Code Behaves - Property Tests and Structured Checks for SIL / SIR / sirrev
•
2