Skip to main content
INFORMATIVEACTIVEDocumentation Governance

Enterprise Scenarios

Purpose

These scenario cards illustrate how enterprise constraints map to required evidence and conformance dimensions.

Each card follows a strict format:

  1. Constraint — The organizational pressure
  2. Required Evidence — What MUST exist in the Evidence Pack
  3. Conformance Anchor — Which kernel duties and evaluation dimensions apply

[!IMPORTANT] These are NOT implementation guides. These are evidence-centered thought experiments.


Scenario 1: Multi-Team Concurrent Modification

Constraint

  • Two teams modify overlapping system state concurrently
  • No shared trust, no implicit ordering
  • Each team has separate approval authority
  • Conflicts must be traceable to resolution decisions

Required Evidence

Evidence TypePurpose
State-sync eventsRecord all synchronization attempts
Transaction boundariesMark atomic operation scopes
Conflict resolution recordsDocument which version won and why
Snapshot before/after divergenceEnable rollback verification
Confirm records per teamTrace approval to team authority

Conformance Anchor

ComponentReference
Kernel Dutiesstate-sync, transaction, confirm
Golden FlowGF-02 (Multi-Agent Coordination)
Conformance ClassL3 (Execution)
Evaluation DimensionsLifecycle Completeness, Governance Gating

Key Question

"If these two teams' changes collided, can we prove who approved what, when, and how the conflict was resolved?"


Scenario 2: Cross-Quarter Semantic Versioning

Constraint

  • System has been running for 6+ months
  • Protocol version was upgraded mid-quarter
  • Auditor asks: "Show me all plans created under v1.0.0 vs v1.0.1"
  • Legal requires proof that no v1.0.0 semantics were silently changed

Required Evidence

Evidence TypePurpose
Protocol version in all artifactsmeta.protocolVersion in Context, Plan, Trace
Change logRecord of version upgrade decision
Schema bundle versionmeta.schemaVersion matching protocol
Approval record for upgradeConfirm with decision: approved
Pre/post upgrade snapshotsState comparison across version boundary

Conformance Anchor

ComponentReference
Kernel Dutiesprotocol-version, trace, transaction
Golden FlowGF-01 (Single Agent Lifecycle)
Conformance ClassL2 (Coordination)
Evaluation DimensionsVersion Declaration, Trace Integrity

Key Question

"Can we separate all evidence by protocol version and prove upgrade approval?"


Scenario 3: Post-Incident Audit & Accountability

Constraint

  • Agent system caused a production incident
  • Management requires: "Who approved the plan that led to this?"
  • Legal requires: "What was the execution trace?"
  • Engineering requires: "Can we replay to find root cause?"

Required Evidence

Evidence TypePurpose
Full Trace with segmentsComplete execution timeline
Confirm recordsLink decisions to approvers
Plan with stepsIntent vs. execution comparison
Error eventsFailure points with timestamps
Recovery eventsWhat actions were taken after failure
Snapshot at failure pointState when incident occurred

Conformance Anchor

ComponentReference
Kernel Dutiestrace, error-handling, confirm, orchestration
Golden FlowGF-04 (Drift Detection & Recovery)
Conformance ClassL3 (Execution)
Evaluation DimensionsTrace Integrity, Failure Bounding, Governance Gating

Key Question

"Can we reconstruct the incident timeline, identify the decision chain, and prove bounded failure handling?"


Summary

ScenarioPrimary ConstraintKey EvidenceConformance Class
Multi-Team ConcurrentCoordination without trustConflict resolution recordsL3
Cross-Quarter VersioningLong lifecycle auditabilityVersion-tagged artifactsL2
Post-Incident AuditAccountability after failureFull trace + approver chainL3

Format: Constraint → Evidence → Conformance
Purpose: Evidence-centered thought experiments, NOT implementation guides