Poesis
Usage / 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.
Platform
What serves this use case
Values
Values composed with this use case
- 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
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)
Pains
Pain points
- Pain point Partial
Collection scope, incomplete runs and stale evidence are mistaken for current coverage.
Reviews rely on uninspected or outdated inputs and repeat work when collection failures emerge late.
Addressed by Affordances(1)
Addressed by Capabilities(1)
Addressed by Features(2)
Experienced by Actor types(4)
Addressed through Use cases(6)
- Pain point Partial
The architecture repository is out of date the day it’s written.
Hand-maintained models detach from the territory the moment delivery moves on — and every decision made on them inherits the drift.
Addressed by Affordances(1)
Addressed by Capabilities(3)
Addressed by Features(2)
Experienced by Actor types(4)
Addressed through Use cases(7)
- Author and approve a shared definition
- Reconcile code evidence into reviewed definitions
- React to a committed definition change
- Extract definition candidates from a code revision
- Source IT definitions from inspected evidence
- Hold definitions as the authoritative, revision-bound source
- Review candidates from selected sources