Poesis
Candidate Standard Model · Solution
The Generative System Model — the governed world model.
The Generative System Model: a candidate common language for system definitions and governance.
Specification content, selected packages and research records exist. Content availability differs from publication, neutral stewardship, processor conformance and operational integration.
OpenTelemetry conventions and Kubernetes CRDs are useful analogies for shared semantics and typing, not interoperability proof or identity with Archetypes.
Values
Shared definition semantics, inspectable sources and interoperability.
- 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)
Capabilities
Specification content, selected vocabularies and research with distinct scopes.
- Capability Implemented
Systemic primitive vocabulary
Describe structure, behavior, interactions and governance through eight common subject types whose domain vocabulary and constraints are expressed by Archetypes. This supplies a typed basis for scoped system modeling, not proof that the fixed core is universally adequate.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Supports Values(2)
Serves Use cases(1)
Used by Actor types(2)
Realized by Features(2)
- Capability Implemented
Open domain typing
Extend domain vocabulary and constraints with governed Archetypes grounded in the fixed GSM subject types, while the Ascription lifecycle gives changes versioned review and activation semantics. Extension does not add subject types; processors must implement the specified typing and lifecycle rules.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Supports Values(3)
Serves Use cases(1)
Used by Actor types(3)
Realized by Features(3)
- Capability Partial
Governance grammar and lifecycle
Connect governance scope and evaluable constraints to immutable snapshots that progress through review, activation, suspension and retirement. Current DNA grammar and lifecycle content exist in source, with publication pending; enforcement belongs to processors, and future grammar extensions require accepted Change Proposals.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Supports Values(3)
Serves Use cases(1)
Used by Actor types(2)
Realized by Features(3)
- Capability Partial
Selected framework and regulation sourcing
Bring selected architecture, quality, security and regulatory concerns into a common governance vocabulary with reviewable source mappings and reusable templates. Existing content is selectively scoped and legal templates remain unbound; adopter interpretation, full coverage, future frameworks and update delivery are separate responsibilities.
Addresses Pain points(2)
Supports Values(3)
Serves Use cases(1)
Used by Actor types(3)
- Capability Partial
Selected protocol and domain vocabulary
Describe IT subjects, their protocol interactions and evidence attribution using reusable domain and protocol vocabulary. Selected HTTP, IT and PROV content exists, while other protocols are planned; these schemas neither dispatch interactions nor populate or verify provenance automatically.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Supports Values(2)
Serves Use cases(1)
Used by Actor types(3)
- Capability Implemented
Profile-scoped definition interchange
Specify definition interchange that preserves subject types, Archetype constraints, governance relationships and lifecycle meaning across an explicit conformance profile. Qualification compares processor exports and imports; independent compatibility evidence and preservation of nonconformant DRAFTs remain gates before complete-migration claims.
Addresses Pain points(2)
Supports Values(4)
Serves Use cases(1)
Used by Actor types(3)
- Capability Partial
Research-informed model evolution
Connect hypotheses about system behavior and governance to case evidence, recorded decisions and proposed model revisions. Research records support scrutiny, not accepted semantics: conceptual cases differ from executed experiments, and normative evolution requires discriminating evidence and accepted Change Proposals.
Addresses Pain points(1)
Supports Values(3)
Serves Use cases(1)
Used by Actor types(2)
Products
Specifications, Ontology and Research Lab.
- Product · recorded v1.0 Partial Specifications
Define systems and governance with a shared, extensible language.
Product features- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented Eight systemic primitives
- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented DNA grammar
- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented Archetyping
- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented Systemic Ascription lifecycle
- Feature · milestone v1.1 Planned Enhanced Directives and Norms model
- Product · recorded v0.1 Partial Ontology
Start governance modeling from sourced vocabulary and reusable templates.
Product features- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented HTTP
- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented TOGAF
- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented IT
- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented ISO 25010
- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented ISO 25012
- Feature · milestone v1.0 Implemented PROV
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned gRPC
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned GraphQL
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned Kafka
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned AMQP
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned JDBC
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned WebSocket
- Feature · milestone v1.x Implemented GDPR
- Feature · milestone v1.x Implemented NIS2
- Feature · milestone v1.x Implemented SCAP
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned DORA
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned SAFe
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned ITIL
- Feature · milestone v1.x Planned Catalogue update stream
- Product · recorded v1.0.0-beta.1 Partial Research Lab
Explore and challenge the ideas shaping GSM.
Product features- Feature · milestone v1.0.0-beta.1 Implemented Causal model research
- Feature · milestone v1.0.0-beta.1 Implemented Governance chain research
- Feature · milestone v1.0.0-beta.1 Implemented DNA production research
- Feature · milestone v1.0.0-beta.1 Implemented Research cases
- Feature · milestone v1.0.0-beta.1 Implemented Decision register
- Feature · milestone v1.0 Partial Research protocol & promotion path
Qualities
What the model owes the sources it was built from.
- Model-native taxonomy Partial Each framework keeps its own structure
TOGAF, ISO 25000, GDPR, NIS2 and protocol vocabularies are sourced under their own taxonomies. Composition happens through Directives, not schema cross-references.
- Cited provenance Partial Every sourced statement names its clause
Sourced Directives and Norms cite the section they derive from. Citation supports review; it does not establish legal completeness.
- Stable identity Partial Published identifiers are not rewritten
Archetype identifiers are logical and versioned. Content exists in source; publication, neutral stewardship and processor conformance are separate steps.
Usage
Modeling, evidence and integration use cases
- 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
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 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 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)