Poesis
Usage / 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.
Authorized integration client / Platform / Ops / SRE lead / Enterprise Architect
Platform
What serves this use case
Capabilities
- SIE: Collaborative contribution intake Implemented
Values
Values composed with this use case
- 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)
Pains
Pain points
- Pain point Partial
Governance drifts from what actually runs.
The declared estate and the running estate diverge silently — until an audit or an incident exposes the gap.
Addressed by Affordances(1)
Addressed by Capabilities(3)
Addressed by Features(3)
Experienced by Actor types(6)
Addressed through Use cases(8)
- Set and review evidence-refresh expectations
- Reconcile code evidence into reviewed definitions
- Review recurring patient-portal appraisal
- Submit a contribution to a declared panel
- Close a contribution collection for review
- Collect competing contributions on a shared blackboard
- Obtain a reproducible verdict for supplied inputs
- Review candidates from selected sources
- Pain point Partial
The reason for a decision stays in an email thread instead of reaching the next reviewer.
In a manual handoff, the next reviewer repeats interviews to recover assumptions and unresolved objections.
Addressed by Capabilities(2)
Addressed by Features(1)
Experienced by Actor types(7)
Addressed through Use cases(6)