Poesis
Usage
Workflows and outcomes
- Use case Planned
Configure repository collection boundaries
Select repository branches, paths and revision boundaries so inspected evidence matches the intended acquisition scope.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Diagnose and recover incomplete collection
Identify failed or partial acquisition runs, correct their causes and resume collection without presenting missing evidence as complete coverage.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(1)
- Use case Planned
Set and review evidence-refresh expectations
Agree refresh expectations and inspect source age, failed refreshes and coverage limits before using collected evidence.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Review operation-specific privileges
Review tenant, object and action permissions against assigned responsibilities and remove unnecessary authority.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(4)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Restore identity-provider synchronization
Reconcile external identity and group changes with local access assignments, inspect synchronization failures and verify revoked access is no longer granted.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Prepare and conduct a multi-item governance session
Prepare a related decision agenda, record participation and retain each revision-bound decision and condition without treating a meeting vote as authorization by itself.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Resolve a blocked change request
Inspect blocking validation and lifecycle findings, correct the proposal and submit the revised scope for renewed review.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Retrieve the basis of a historical decision
Retrieve the decided revision, recorded identity, supporting evidence and conditions relevant to a historical decision, retaining attribution gaps.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(5)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Define and reuse a scoped review lens
Save explicit subject-selection and dependency-traversal rules and reuse them with visible snapshot boundaries across reviews.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Inspect one subject across framework perspectives
Compare architecture, security and quality classifications of the same identified subject without confusing classification with obligation applicability.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Compose and reuse a governance selection
Save a pinned selection of governance packages and reuse it while separately reviewing applicability for each adopting scope.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Resolve competing obligations before adoption
Compare overlapping requirements, record interpretations and obtain an accountable resolution of incompatible obligations before adoption.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Identify gaps in selected vocabulary coverage
Compare selected vocabulary against an explicit subject and concern inventory, exposing uncovered areas without claiming legal completeness.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Author and maintain reusable output bindings
Define versioned template fields and source bindings that produce consistent named artifact families from pinned definitions.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Preview bindings before generating an artifact
Inspect sample binding resolution and missing inputs before accepting a template for document generation.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Set grounding constraints for generated narrative
Specify source requirements and editorial constraints for generated fields, then review citations and unsupported statements before accepting output.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Operate recurring report production
Schedule version-pinned report production and detect failed or late runs before a review depends on the output.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Investigate partial or failed generation
Inspect job completion, errors and partial outputs to decide what can be reused and what must be regenerated and reviewed.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Turn uncovered obligations into corrective proposals
Turn scoped findings into owned definition-change proposals and verify resolution through a subsequent appraisal rather than merely closing a task.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Bind selected obligations to an organizational scope
Establish the subjects, conditions and accountable interpretation that make selected obligations applicable to a specific adopting scope.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Assess dependent definitions after foundation invalidation
Inspect dependent definition eligibility after a referenced foundation is invalidated and determine which continued uses require renewed review.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Agree evidence-preservation requirements
Agree retention purpose, duration, access and disposal constraints for decision evidence, distinguishing agreed policy from demonstrated enforcement.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(4)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Qualify a rule revision against reference cases
Compare old and proposed rule verdicts on pinned reference inputs, investigate changed or unknown results and record acceptance before adoption.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Implemented
Agree a reusable domain typing contract
Agree a versioned vocabulary and its constraints with adopters, using examples and counterexamples to expose incompatible interpretations.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Implemented
Qualify transfer between independent processors
Compare exported and imported definitions against an explicit conformance profile, including identity, lifecycle meaning and nonconformant draft preservation.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(4)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Implemented
Approve an agent resource and action mandate
Review resource/action grants against a bounded assignment and its expiry, then check those grants and the target baseline before mediated work. Mandate review is planned; grant checking alone is not authenticated human approval.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(6)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Implemented
Qualify model routing for a workload
Compare candidate model routes against workload-specific quality, cost and disclosure criteria using retained evaluation evidence.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(4)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Qualify instruction delivery on another host
Verify that a target host receives the pinned instructions and declared checks, distinguishing delivery from model adherence before migration.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Reconcile conflicting parallel agent outputs
Resolve overlapping edits against a shared baseline while retaining attribution and revalidating the combined artifacts before acceptance.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Assess application decommissioning prerequisites
Identify dependent consumers, retained obligations and missing evidence before approving an application retirement boundary; execution remains a separate operation.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Accept a service responsibility baseline
Agree service commitments, application dependencies and accountable owners against a dated evidence baseline.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Transfer service ownership
Obtain explicit acceptance of service responsibilities, active exceptions and unresolved obligations by the receiving owner.
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Review a time-bound risk exception
Decide a scoped exception with explicit authority, expiry, risk ownership and compensating-control evidence.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Renew or close a risk exception
Review current exposure and control evidence before renewing, revoking or closing an exception at its review boundary.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Review a breaking API contract change
Identify affected consumers and inspect compatibility evidence before accepting an interface change and migration conditions.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Coordinate an API deprecation
Agree consumer migration and retirement prerequisites while making unknown consumers and unresolved compatibility visible.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Hand over operational decisions and evidence
Give a receiving service owner authoritative decisions, source evidence and unresolved questions sufficient to review and accept a handover.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Prioritize vulnerabilities by service exposure
Relate findings to deployed components, affected services and business criticality to assign justified remediation priorities and owners.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Review vulnerability mitigation evidence
Decide whether observed verification supports closure of a finding or requires a separately approved, time-bound exception.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Assess a supplier change against service commitments
Review changed supplier terms and assurance evidence against dependent services, accountable owners and unresolved exposure.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Review supplier exit readiness
Assess replacement dependencies, portability evidence and retained obligations before accepting a supplier exit plan.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Review a service recovery exercise
Compare observed recovery time and data restoration with service and business commitments, retaining untested scenarios and evidence gaps.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(4)
- Use case Planned
Resolve recovery dependency conflicts
Identify incompatible recovery sequences and shared-resource assumptions before agreeing a service recovery exercise plan.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Review a data contract change
Review schema, meaning and quality changes with affected producers and consumers before accepting migration conditions.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Resolve competing data-quality requirements
Agree scoped quality expectations and evidence requirements when consumers need different freshness, completeness or accuracy.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Trace a software incident to affected business processes
Trace an observed software incident through identified deployed components and service dependencies to affected business processes and owners, distinguishing confirmed disruption, possible exposure and missing evidence to prioritize response.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
- Use case Implemented
Read and model a governance decision
Interpret the primitive, typing, governance-grammar and lifecycle clauses relevant to a proposed decision, identifying permitted representations and constraints without claiming that a processor enforces them.
Supported by Features(4)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Describe a service contract and its attribution
Select sourced HTTP, IT-domain and provenance concepts for a service description, checking the meaning and attribution of each assertion. Vocabulary does not implement the service or prove its behavior.
Supported by Features(3)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Describe payment request and notification boundaries
Use sourced gRPC, GraphQL and WebSocket concepts to describe request, response and notification boundaries in a payment example. Application payment rules and delivery guarantees require separate definitions and evidence.
Supported by Features(3)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Describe payment settlement and recovery boundaries
Use sourced JDBC, Kafka and AMQP concepts to describe transaction and messaging boundaries in a settlement example, exposing the recovery assumptions that vocabulary alone cannot establish.
Supported by Features(3)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Review sourced obligations before binding them
Prepare a source-linked shortlist of architecture, quality and regulatory requirements for a bounded IT review.
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(4)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Review a governance package upgrade
Compare revised financial-resilience, delivery and service-management source content with the selected package versions and identify obligations needing renewed adopter review. A source update does not itself change accepted obligations.
Supported by Features(4)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Implemented
Review a model research question
Trace a non-normative modeling question to its explanations and recorded decision status.
Supported by Features(4)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(5)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Test and propose a grammar extension
Turn a demonstrated modeling limit into a reviewable compatibility-aware Change Proposal.
Supported by Features(3)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Incorporate an accepted grammar extension
Incorporate an approved grammar change with explicit compatibility and migration boundaries.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Reconcile code evidence into reviewed definitions
Turn competing source-revision candidates into attributable definition drafts for review.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(9)
- Keep governance closer to its evidence.
- Give AI attributable context.
- Reduce manual candidate authoring.
- Relate definitions to inspected revisions.
- Inspect the basis of proposals.
- Use evidence to inform revisions.
- Compare contributed partial views.
- Separate exploration from acceptance.
- Trace retained proposal evidence.
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
React to a committed definition change
Refresh a downstream view from committed changes without repeated full polling.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Review a scoped IT appraisal
Review versioned findings with explicit applicability, input identity and missing evidence.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(6)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Review recurring patient-portal appraisal
Compare successive portal appraisal results, review corrective proposals and decide what needs reappraisal. Operational conclusions require supplied deployment observations with explicit coverage and freshness; recurring scheduling is a separate prerequisite.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(4)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Inspect a change before committing to it
Trace affected definitions and obligations, then record what remains unknown before deciding.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Ask an IT question and inspect its sources
Obtain a read-only answer whose claims can be checked against authorized definition snapshots.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Generate and review an architecture decision pack
Assemble an ADR pack and evidence summary from the same pinned inputs, then review the substantive result.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Execute a bounded response and inspect the receipt
Perform a named authorized operation and retain enough evidence to decide whether recovery is needed.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(6)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Deliver a reviewed artifact through a local workflow
Produce a scoped artifact through an attributable local method, checks and human review.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(8)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Set up a workspace and publish checked artifacts
Reproduce a pinned local delivery environment and carry the same declared artifact checks into controlled CI publication.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(4)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Reuse captured delivery evidence as definition proposals
Turn a pinned artifact and its captured journal into inspectable candidates without confusing generated work with deployed behavior.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(4)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Extract definition candidates from a code revision
Analyze a pinned repository revision and inspect candidate subjects, relationships, provenance and uncertainty before any client promotes a draft. Inspected source is not evidence of deployed behavior.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Read and revise definitions through the API
Create, query and revise typed definitions through the REST contract, inspecting validation, revision and access responses without treating a successful draft write as approval.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Qualify an execution adapter for an integration
Check a selected adapter's transport, authority and failure contract against a named integration, distinguishing supported operations from planned adapter coverage.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Submit a contribution to a declared panel
Post a candidate to a declared panel and inspect schema, identity, confidence-envelope and rejection responses under the client/server contract. Acceptance into collection is not definition approval.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(1)
- Use case Implemented
Close a contribution collection for review
Request sealing or abandonment of a contribution collection and inspect concurrent-intake outcomes and snapshot readiness. Closing collection does not approve or activate a definition.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Inspect retained contribution evidence
Retrieve stored candidates and their captured evidence to inspect provenance and conflicting assertions, making missing audit, integrity or promoted-draft links explicit.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Resolve the next eligible workflow step
Resolve eligible steps from workflow configuration and recorded outcomes on a supported adapter; leave dispatch to the host rather than treating resolution as execution.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Validate a mediated artifact write
Check a proposed write set against a matched schema and inspect structured-data or Markdown-metadata violations before writing. Passing validation does not establish prose quality or acceptance.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Inspect a captured harness invocation sequence
Read correlated session-journal records to reconstruct captured harness invocations and their outcomes, distinguishing absent records from evidence that no action occurred.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Assign a delivery responsibility from the role catalog
Select portfolio, program, team and specialist roles for a delivery responsibility and make their boundaries explicit without treating a role definition as an authenticated authority grant.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Select a practice playbook for a delivery task
Choose a domain or practice playbook for a named task and inspect its applicability and required evidence; reusable guidance does not prove agent adherence.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Define a delivery ceremony and its handoffs
Specify the sequence of roles, context and artifacts for a ceremony, identifying human-decision checkpoints separately from the planned implementation that authenticates them.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Select versioned instructions for an engineering role
Identify the versioned instructions governing a role's engineering work and distinguish advisory guidance from requirements enforced by separate executable gates.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Define a deliverable schema and template
Select a schema and Markdown template for a named deliverable and inspect required metadata, content and references before using them as a write contract.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Install a pinned agentic workspace
Set up a selected harness, organization and host combination while preserving existing work, checking version compatibility separately from the manual setup route.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(1)
- Use case Planned
Publish artifacts through configured CI checks
Run pinned artifact contracts and environment-specific checks through a configured publication pipeline, inspecting failures before publication; publication is not production deployment acceptance.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Planned
Extract definition candidates from delivery history
Derive typed Blackboard candidates from supplied pinned artifacts and journals, inspecting provenance and uncertainty before the separate client-owned draft-promotion step.
Supported by Features(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(1)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Maintain a governed IT definition inventory
Keep typed IT definitions, their review lenses, authorizations and decision sessions coherent so every review works from the same attributable inventory.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(4)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Compose an IT governance fabric for an adopting scope
Apply a pinned package selection to a shared subject inventory, inspect overlaps and uncovered concerns through review lenses, and retain adoption decisions against exact revisions. Composition is distinct from evaluation and enforcement.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Source IT definitions from inspected evidence
Run revision-pinned acquisition, review its coverage limits and register the resulting candidates as drafts, keeping source revision distinct from deployed reality.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Run a scoped IT compliance appraisal
Appraise selected definition revisions, review findings and unknown states with accountable owners, carry corrective proposals through a decision session and reappraise the revised scope. Supplied observations are needed for live-system conclusions.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Answer an IT question from the governed model
Assess a proposed IT change by combining dependency and obligation paths with cited read-only answers over the same authorized definitions. Compare affected parties and unresolved evidence before choosing an option; graph traversal is not causal simulation.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Planned
Produce a named IT document family from pinned definitions
Select an IT baseline and its recorded decisions, bind a versioned document family to those inputs, and review generated packs together for consistency and missing evidence. Recurring jobs preserve the same inspection and acceptance boundaries.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Enforce definition lifecycle boundaries
Distinguish collection closure from definition approval, validate revision-bound lifecycle changes and inspect dependent eligibility after foundation invalidation. Where the notification route is available, inform authorized consumers without conflating event delivery with approval.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Implemented
Collect competing contributions on a shared blackboard
Collect independent candidates under declared panel contracts and revisit their retained provenance to compare conflicting assertions. Contribution acceptance and evidence retention do not themselves seal a board or promote an approved definition.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Obtain a reproducible verdict for supplied inputs
Select coherent definition revisions through the API, supply pinned inputs and Norms to evaluation, and compare verdicts across rule revisions with explicit applicability and unknown states. Repeatability applies to identical evaluation inputs, not changing live systems.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Run a Mechanism inside declared bounds
Resolve an eligible operation and its supported adapter, apply declared authority and execution limits, then interpret the receipt against that adapter's failure contract before deciding on recovery. Wider adapters and complete execution controls require their own acceptance.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Implemented
Type a governance concern with the systemic primitives
Represent a scoped governance concern using the fixed primitive roles and domain Archetypes together, exposing relationships and concerns the chosen representation cannot express. A valid representation does not establish universal model adequacy.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Define a domain vocabulary as an Archetype
Define domain vocabulary over the fixed subject types, identify its versioned dependencies and specify how typed definitions pass through correction, review and lifecycle change. Processors implement the specified controls.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Express an obligation in the governance grammar
Express governing intent as a Directive and evaluable Norms, and specify the review and activation boundaries of their Ascriptions. Grammar and lifecycle meaning remain distinct from runtime enforcement.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Adopt a sourced framework or regulation
Relate selected architecture, quality and regulatory concepts to a common adopting concern, retaining clause provenance and unresolved interpretation or binding decisions. Source-content reuse does not certify legal completeness or compliance.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Describe an interaction with sourced protocol vocabulary
Type a service, its protocol boundaries and the attribution of each assertion using selected protocol and domain vocabulary, without mistaking a schema for an adapter.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(2)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Take a modeling limit through research to a decision
Trace a modeling limit through hypotheses, cases and recorded decisions, identify missing discriminating evidence and prepare a compatibility-aware Change Proposal where warranted. A research record is not an accepted model change or proof that an experiment ran.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Implemented
Run an agentic workflow with deterministic controls
Resolve eligible work, supply configured guidance, select a model route and correlate captured invocations for a supported local execution. Host dispatch and probabilistic generation remain distinct from deterministic workflow controls.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Check a produced artifact against its contract
Choose the deliverable's schema and template, resolve the applicable contract and inspect violations in a mediated write set before writing. Structured validation and metadata checks do not replace substantive review or acceptance.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Adopt the agentic SAFe operating model
Assign responsibilities from the role catalog, connect their ceremonies and handoffs, and select the practices and instructions each role needs. Qualify the harness, template and host combination separately from adopting the operating model.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(1)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Gate an advancement on an authenticated human decision
Bind an advancement decision to the exact artifact revision and human authority, constrain the resulting work through grants and sequencing, and retain the decision trail. This gate remains planned; existing grants and journals do not authenticate approvers.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Deliver from a local-first, reproducible plane
Produce and reconcile Git-managed artifacts using versioned deliverable contracts and captured journals, retaining evidence for review. Reproducible installation and CI publication use separately qualified routes alongside manual local setup.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Turn delivery history into definition candidates
Correlate pinned artifact revisions with captured invocation history and derive typed candidates whose provenance, uncertainty and source limitations remain inspectable. Candidate contributions are neither accepted definitions nor evidence of deployed systems.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(2)
- Use case Partial
Review selected obligations together
Bring source-linked frameworks, regulations and internal obligations into the same scoped review, compare overlaps and uncovered concerns, and retain accountable adoption decisions without claiming automatic conflict resolution or legal completeness.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Make review and activation boundaries explicit
Carry a proposed governance change through explicit grammar, revision-bound review and authorized lifecycle transitions, including human decision boundaries. A research-driven model revision follows its own acceptance process; collection sealing is not activation.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(4)
- Use case Partial
Review candidates from selected sources
Compare code-derived and delivery-derived candidates against their pinned source evidence, retain competing contributions and acquisition gaps, and select what may proceed to draft review. Confidence does not settle truth or establish deployed reality.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Addresses Pain points(3)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Evaluate identified inputs against supported Norms
Combine reproducible Norm verdicts with scoped IT measures and findings to identify accountable corrective work and judge a subsequent appraisal. Preserve rule/input identity, applicability and unknown states; operational conclusions require observation evidence.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Addresses Pain points(2)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(3)
- Use case Partial
Generate artifacts through declared workflows
Produce a grounded document or software artifact through assigned roles, bounded workflow execution and explicit deliverable contracts, then obtain the required revision-bound review before advancement. Technical checks, substantive acceptance and authorized deployment remain separate decisions.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Addresses Pain points(3)
Realizes Values(3)
Performed by Actor types(4)