Poesis
Values
Benefits sought
- Value Partial
Inspect acquisition scope and freshness
Distinguish inspected revisions from missing, failed or stale collection before relying on source evidence.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
Realized through Use cases(6)
- Value Partial
Align access with responsibilities
Review action-specific permissions and identity synchronization against current responsibilities, with revocation and failures explicitly verified.
Supported by Features(2)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Partial
Repeatable review boundaries
Reuse explicit selection and traversal rules so reviewers can compare decisions against identified subjects and snapshot boundaries.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Coherent records of related decisions
Retain agendas, participation and per-revision decisions together while keeping discussion, voting and authorized lifecycle decisions distinct.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Carry findings into corrective decisions
Connect blocking findings and uncovered obligations to owned corrections, renewed review and subsequent evidence of resolution.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Make obligation applicability explicit
Separate reusable templates and vocabulary coverage from the subjects, conditions and accountable interpretation that establish applicable obligations.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Distinguish generated output from accepted completion
Inspect binding resolution, grounding constraints, missing inputs and job outcomes before accepting or reusing a generated deliverable.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(6)
- Value Implemented
Proportionate evidence preservation
Agree justified preservation periods, access and disposal constraints while keeping policy decisions distinct from verified retention enforcement.
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(1)
- Value Partial
Understand verdict changes before rule adoption
Compare rule revisions on pinned reference inputs and inspect changed and unknown results before accepting their effect on decisions.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Implemented
Qualify delivery hosts and model routes
Evaluate host instruction delivery and model routes against explicit workload quality, cost and disclosure criteria rather than assuming interchangeable behavior.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Planned
Clear accountability for service commitments
Establish who accepts each service commitment and dependency, including responsibilities transferred to a new owner.
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Time-bounded risk acceptance
Keep accepted exposure tied to accountable decisions, expiry and current compensating-control evidence rather than indefinite exceptions.
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Predictable evolution of shared interfaces
Coordinate contract changes and consumer migration against explicit compatibility evidence and retirement prerequisites.
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Transfer usable operational knowledge
Carry authoritative decisions, unresolved obligations and inspected evidence into a handover the receiving service owner can accept.
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Remediation focused on consequential exposure
Direct security effort toward affected deployed services and business consequences, with mitigation effectiveness reviewed before closure.
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Supplier decisions grounded in service exposure
Assess supplier changes and exits using dependent-service commitments, scoped assurance evidence and unresolved transition obligations.
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Recovery commitments supported by evidence
Distinguish stated recovery targets from observed exercise results, dependency constraints and scenarios that remain untested.
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Dependable data handoffs
Agree the meaning and quality of exchanged data with its consumers, making contract changes and conflicting requirements explicit before adoption.
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Prioritize incident response by business consequences
Connect observed software disruption to affected business processes and accountable owners, separating confirmed impact from possible exposure so response and communication follow justified priorities.
Realized through Use cases(1)
- Value Partial
Reduce uncertainty about a specified change
Bring relevant context and affected definitions into a shared review, making dependency paths and missing evidence visible before deciding.
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Reduce time that nonconformance remains unknown
Use planned scoped evaluation to surface findings earlier, with observation coverage, freshness and unknown states visible to reviewers.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Delegate bounded work with evidence and recourse
Build toward delegated workflows with explicit obligations, decision boundaries and controlled effects, retaining evidence for intervention and recovery.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(3)
Supported by Features(2)
Realized through Use cases(7)
- Approve an agent resource and action mandate
- Execute a bounded response and inspect the receipt
- Deliver a reviewed artifact through a local workflow
- Run a Mechanism inside declared bounds
- Check a produced artifact against its contract
- Gate an advancement on an authenticated human decision
- Generate artifacts through declared workflows
- Value Partial
Reduce avoidable reconstruction and rework
Reuse shared context and generated artifacts so effort can shift from repeated assembly to curation and review. Net savings depend on the workflow and compute costs.
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Reduce evidence reconstruction effort
Bring linked snapshots, decisions and provenance into a stated audit scope, with completeness assessed against that review rather than inferred from history alone.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Keep governance closer to its evidence.
Bring shared definitions, reviewed candidates and scoped appraisal together to simplify reconciliation. For running systems, keep observation coverage and freshness visible.
Supported by Affordances(2)
Supported by Capabilities(2)
- Value Partial
Give AI attributable context.
Ground planned read-only answers in authorized, versioned definitions, with citations and abstention for review. Build that context through direct authoring or reviewed sourcing.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Planned
Coordinate IT work around shared definitions.
Reuse common inputs across appraisal, analysis and document generation so profiles can review decisions against the same definitions. Outputs and scenarios remain subject to review.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(3)
- Value Partial
Review obligations together.
Reuse selected packages in one scoped review, with applicability, conflicting obligations and missing evidence visible for resolution.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
A shared workspace for IT decisions.
Author and review a common inventory through planned integrated workflows and scoped permissions, reducing handoffs between separate representations.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Make scoped appraisal inspectable.
Prepare reviews from versioned findings with visible coverage, observation age and unknown results. Legal interpretation stays with the reviewer.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Reduce repeated document assembly.
Generate reviewable document families from reusable definitions and templates, then focus effort on review, correction and template upkeep.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Planned
Inspect possible effects before deciding.
Follow dependency and obligation paths to affected definitions. Timing, probability and causal predictions belong to the further simulation scope.
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Planned
Check answers against sources.
Use the planned copilot to find relevant definitions and inspect cited evidence, snapshot age and uncertainty alongside each answer.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Partial
Reduce manual candidate authoring.
Prepare proposals through staged analysis and optional inference so experts can focus on reconciliation and acceptance.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Relate definitions to inspected revisions.
Reconcile definitions against pinned source evidence. Relating them to running systems additionally requires deployed identity, configuration and fresh observations.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Partial
Inspect the basis of proposals.
Review provenance and confidence alongside retained tool details, source revisions and competing evidence.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Realized through Use cases(1)
- Value Partial
Control sourcing data exposure.
Bound the planned sourcing workflow with explicit policies for tool/model egress, credentials, telemetry and retention, including any data leaving the local process.
- Value Partial
Make shared context attributable.
Build toward policy-filtered snapshots that people and AI can inspect. Direct API authoring is independent of sourcing, with MCP planned as an additional interface.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Constrain operations at declared boundaries.
Combine eligibility, caller authority and adapter contracts to bound effectful execution. Keep pure verdict evaluation separate from actions that change a system.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(3)
- Value Partial
Build toward bounded feedback loops.
Connect definitions, observations, evaluation, authorized response and re-observation in future domain-specific loops, with explicit boundaries for each integration.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Use evidence to inform revisions.
Carry reviewed candidates into authorized revisions with promotion lineage. Collection, approval and confirmation against running systems remain distinct steps.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Partial
Make transitions inspectable.
Check lifecycle advancement against defined transitions, with authentication, policy and current grammar alignment completing the governance boundary.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(3)
Supported by Features(2)
Realized through Use cases(6)
- Assess dependent definitions after foundation invalidation
- Author and approve a shared definition
- Read and revise definitions through the API
- Hold definitions as the authoritative, revision-bound source
- Enforce definition lifecycle boundaries
- Make review and activation boundaries explicit
- Value Partial
Access snapshots programmatically.
Reuse structured snapshots across tools instead of manually exchanging documents, within each route's validated isolation, pagination and performance scope.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Implemented
Reuse retained lifecycle evidence.
Start review from retained version history. Linking actors, rationale and retention policy completes the evidence needed for a stated audit scope.
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Partial
React to committed changes.
Use planned change notifications to replace repeated polling, with replay and recovery for missed events.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Partial
Connect eligible definitions to bounded action.
Use defined mechanisms for named operations, adding verdicts, scheduling and feedback when building a complete domain loop.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Partial
Make pure verdicts reproducible.
Replay planned pure evaluations against pinned rules, inputs and time, independently of effectful execution.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Make eligibility and authority explicit.
Bound operations through governed eligibility together with caller and adapter policy as execution controls are completed.
Supported by Features(2)
Realized through Use cases(2)
- Value Partial
Identify the snapshot used.
Trace execution to requested definition IDs. Coherent pinning will distinguish latest, historical and eligible snapshot policies explicitly.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Compare contributed partial views.
Bring conflicting candidates into shared panels so reviewers can compare evidence and identify gaps in the collected views.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Separate exploration from acceptance.
Collect candidates on the board, reconcile them in a client and govern promoted drafts in the Definition Manager through an explicit integration handoff.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Trace retained proposal evidence.
Revisit captured actors and sources, with reducer decisions and Ascription links extending the trail from proposal to accepted definition.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Build toward shared definition semantics.
Give compatible tools a common vocabulary for definitions, analogous to shared observability conventions. Interchange depends on implemented profiles and independent consumer compatibility.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(3)
Supported by Features(4)
Realized through Use cases(6)
- Value Implemented
Make governed intent explicit.
Describe a chosen domain through typed definitions, explicit obligations and a governed lifecycle, bringing declarative intent to scoped system modeling.
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(4)
- Value Partial
Connect governance and policy tools.
Use shared definitions and obligations as inputs to planned policy, attestation, observation and delivery integrations, with dedicated adapters for each tool.
Supported by Capabilities(4)
Supported by Features(10)
Realized through Use cases(6)
- Value Partial
Inspect the model and its sources.
Evaluate adoption against versioned content, source mappings and visible research questions. Neutral stewardship remains a stated direction, distinct from consortium endorsement.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(10)
- Value Implemented
Reduce bespoke semantic translation.
Reuse shared vocabulary and profiles when connecting tools that implement compatible contracts.
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Implemented
Make portability requirements explicit.
Compare migration routes against declared conformance requirements. Complete transfer still depends on nonconformant DRAFT preservation and independent endpoint compatibility.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Realized through Use cases(1)
- Value Partial
Adapt grammar through evidence.
Address demonstrated modeling limits through planned, reviewed extensions with explicit compatibility decisions.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(4)
- Value Partial
Build toward neutral stewardship.
Pursue consortium stewardship through a visible model and reviewed evolution, with ownership, licensing and publication stated separately.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(6)
- Value Partial
Start from reusable vocabulary.
Build on selected sourced content, then focus authoring effort on installation, interpretation and bindings for your domain.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(7)
- Value Partial
Inspect source mappings.
Review concepts in the source taxonomy with available clause references, checking coverage and legal applicability for your scope.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(7)
- Value Planned
Review composition explicitly.
Combine selected vocabularies through GSM governance, with reference resolution and obligation conflicts handled in review.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Represent attribution explicitly.
Record attribution in typed facets and connect it to consumer-verified actors and populated lineage.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(3)
- Value Planned
Review evolving requirements.
Use planned source monitoring and versioned updates to review changing requirements before choosing governed upgrades.
Supported by Features(4)
Realized through Use cases(1)
- Value Partial
Challenge assumptions explicitly.
Compare alternative explanations through research records and cases, distinguishing conceptual exploration from executed testing.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(6)
- Value Partial
Separate hypotheses from requirements.
Keep exploratory records separate from normative requirements and promote findings through specification governance.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(5)
- Value Implemented
Track open questions consistently.
Reference the same research question across cases and decisions using stable identifiers and visible status.
Supported by Features(4)
Realized through Use cases(1)
- Value Partial
Build toward traceable delivery.
Generate reviewable artifacts through bounded workflows, then carry evidence forward through separate build, deployment and re-observation stages.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
- Value Partial
Make agentic work reviewable.
Combine role contracts, workflow decisions and artifact evidence, with planned authenticated human gates bound to exact revisions.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Coordinate through shared artifacts.
Collaborate through versioned contracts and Git-backed artifacts, reconciling separate journals, merges and version differences explicitly.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Control local delivery data.
Choose local tools and Git workflows, with explicit policies for model/tool egress, telemetry, remotes and backups.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Reuse delivery evidence.
Derive candidates from pinned artifacts and journals through the planned bridge, then review and promote them through a client-owned stage.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
- Value Partial
Inspect control decisions.
Review persisted step and write-authorization decisions within mediated execution, alongside separate checks for output quality and human approval.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Catch invalid declared artifacts earlier.
Check matched schemas before mediated writes so declared structural errors surface early. Coverage follows the supported parser, contract and transaction boundaries.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Implemented
Reuse methods on supported hosts.
Carry plain-file methods between supported host/model adapters, with explicit compatibility and mediation boundaries.
Supported by Features(1)
Realized through Use cases(1)
- Value Partial
Clarify responsibilities.
Assign orchestration and specialist work to named roles, making ownership and handoffs visible in each workflow.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Make expectations inspectable.
Review deliverables against shared templates, practices and workflow contracts, with executable checks supplied by supported harness bindings.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Keep decisions attributable.
Bind advancement to authenticated human decisions on exact revisions and scope through the planned approval workflow.
Supported by Affordances(1)
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Keep artifacts in a chosen working tree.
Own the Git working tree and its artifact history, with separate disclosure policies for journals, remotes, tools, models and backups.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(2)
- Value Partial
Make supported setup repeatable.
Use the planned installer for pinned setup, reruns, upgrades and rollback while preserving existing work.
Supported by Capabilities(2)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Reuse declared checks in CI.
Carry pinned artifact checks into planned CI pipelines, with environment validation and human decisions handled explicitly.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)
- Value Partial
Reuse captured delivery evidence.
Make captured delivery evidence available for review and further reasoning through planned sourcing, with missing records and uncertainty kept visible.
Supported by Capabilities(1)
Supported by Features(1)