AI Initiative logoAI Initiative
Reading room / Learning (Genesis)

Maestro Adaptive Learning Framework

Generalizes issue and change signals into analysis, learning actions, safety checks, controlled application, effectiveness measurement and correction across personas, teams and workflows.

Architecture definition
This is the retained source text, not a new validation of its claims. Numerical results and comparative claims require the accompanying source review before public reuse.

Read the connected case study or article →

Not stated · 2026-01-21

Provenance, authorship and editorial notes

Maestro Adaptive Learning Framework

Id

genesis-learning-maestro-adaptive-learning-framework

Project

Learning (Genesis)

Source path

Learning/Maestro_Adaptive_Learning_Framework.md

Source host

genesis

Source sha256

6d021ecca583de15fac660bacc05826eb570ea91621f6409380530a7f141cbba

Repo head
Not recorded
Date

2026-01-21

Date provenance

Explicit document metadata

Author

Not stated

Document status

Architecture definition

Summary

Generalizes issue and change signals into analysis, learning actions, safety checks, controlled application, effectiveness measurement and correction across personas, teams and workflows.

Topics
  • AI learning
  • AI workflow
  • orchestration
Related ids
  • genesis-learning-maestro-team-coordination-competitive-analysis
Evidence concerns
  • Architecture calls issue workflow implemented and other instantiations planned; those source assertions are not current-runtime verification. Internal links and proposed SLOs retained privately.
Word count

3406

Headings
  • Maestro Adaptive Learning Framework
  • Executive Summary
  • Core Principle
  • Framework Instantiations
  • Part 1: Conceptual Architecture
  • 1.1 The Core Engine
  • 1.2 Pipeline Stages
  • Part 2: Signal Taxonomy
  • 2.1 Signal Categories
  • 2.2 Complete Signal Type Reference
  • 2.3 Signal Data Model (Abstract)
  • Part 3: Analysis Framework
  • 3.1 Analysis Modes
  • 3.2 Root Cause Categories (Reactive Signals)
  • 3.3 Change Driver Categories (Proactive Signals)
  • 3.4 Safety-II: Mitigating Factors
  • Part 4: Learning Actions
  • 4.1 Learning Action Types
  • 4.2 Learning Cascade Order
  • 4.3 Learning Data Model
  • Part 5: Safety Architecture
  • 5.1 Safety Principles
  • 5.2 Over-Correction Guard
  • 5.3 Circuit Breaker
  • 5.4 Effectiveness Tracking
  • 5.5 Approval Matrix
  • Part 6: Implementation Patterns
  • 6.1 Signal Source Adapters
  • 6.2 Learning Applicators
  • 6.3 EventBus Integration
  • Part 7: Instantiation Guide
  • 7.1 Creating a New Workflow Instantiation
  • 7.2 Existing Instantiation: Issue Log Workflow
  • 7.3 Planned Instantiation: Intent Change Workflow
  • 7.4 Planned Instantiation: Governance Change Workflow
Publication status

Publication or peer-reviewed acceptance not established by discovery

Format

md

Private review scan
Known secret pattern hits

0

Customer or player record sets

None identified in selected narrative/design documents; no gameplay records, account databases or hand datasets copied.

Scope

Pattern scan plus document review; not a formal exhaustive privacy audit.

Maestro Adaptive Learning Framework

Purpose: Platform-level architecture for processing change signals and translating them into safe, measured, reversible changes across the Maestro ecosystem
Version: 1.0
Last Updated: 2026-01-21
Status: Architecture Definition


Executive Summary

The Maestro Adaptive Learning Framework is a unified system architecture for processing signals—both reactive (issues, incidents) and proactive (strategic decisions, governance updates, technology changes)—and translating them into controlled, reversible changes across personas, teams, workflows, and templates.

This framework abstracts the patterns proven in the Issue Log Workflow into a generalized architecture that can handle any type of change signal that should trigger system adaptation.

Core Principle

Every signal that indicates the system should change goes through the same rigorous pipeline: Analysis → Learning Generation → Safety Checks → Controlled Application → Effectiveness Measurement → Auto-Correction

Framework Instantiations

InstantiationStatusDescription
Issue Log Workflow✅ ImplementedReactive signals from bugs, incidents, defects
Intent Change Workflow📋 PlannedProactive signals from strategic technology decisions
Governance Change Workflow📋 PlannedMandatory changes from policy and compliance
Technology Evolution Workflow📋 PlannedChanges driven by superior technology availability
Performance Optimization Workflow📋 PlannedChanges driven by measured performance improvements

Part 1: Conceptual Architecture

1.1 The Core Engine

Every change signal flows through the same pipeline:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                        MAESTRO ADAPTIVE LEARNING FRAMEWORK                           │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                                      │
│  ┌─────────────┐    ┌─────────────┐    ┌─────────────┐    ┌─────────────┐          │
│  │   SIGNAL    │    │  ANALYSIS   │    │  LEARNING   │    │   SAFETY    │          │
│  │  INGESTION  │───►│   ENGINE    │───►│ GENERATION  │───►│   LAYER     │          │
│  └─────────────┘    └─────────────┘    └─────────────┘    └──────┬──────┘          │
│        ▲                                                         │                  │
│        │                                                         ▼                  │
│  ┌─────┴─────┐                                           ┌─────────────┐           │
│  │  SOURCES  │                                           │ APPLICATION │           │
│  │           │                                           │   ENGINE    │           │
│  │ • Issues  │                                           └──────┬──────┘           │
│  │ • Intent  │                                                  │                  │
│  │ • Gov     │    ┌─────────────┐    ┌─────────────┐           │                  │
│  │ • Tech    │    │EFFECTIVENESS│◄───│  LEARNING   │◄──────────┘                  │
│  │ • Perf    │    │  TRACKING   │    │  TARGETS    │                              │
│  │ • Market  │    └──────┬──────┘    └─────────────┘                              │
│  └───────────┘           │                  │                                      │
│                          │           ┌──────┴──────┐                               │
│                          │           │  • Persona  │                               │
│                          │           │  • Team     │                               │
│                          │           │  • Workflow │                               │
│                          │           │  • Template │                               │
│                          ▼           └─────────────┘                               │
│                   ┌─────────────┐                                                   │
│                   │AUTO-ROLLBACK│ (if effectiveness < threshold)                   │
│                   └─────────────┘                                                   │
│                                                                                      │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

1.2 Pipeline Stages

StagePurposeKey Questions
Signal IngestionCapture change signals from multiple sourcesWhat triggered this? What's the source? Is it valid?
Analysis EngineUnderstand the signal and its implicationsWhy is this happening? What's the root cause/driver? What's affected?
Learning GenerationCreate specific, actionable changesWhat should change? How much? Who approves?
Safety LayerPrevent over-correction and cascading failuresIs this safe? Are we changing too much? Should we pause?
Application EngineApply changes to targetsApply to persona/team/workflow/template with rollback capability
Effectiveness TrackingMeasure if changes achieved goalsDid it work? Should we keep it? Should we rollback?

Part 2: Signal Taxonomy

2.1 Signal Categories

Signals are classified into Reactive (responding to problems) and Proactive (responding to opportunities/decisions):

                            CHANGE SIGNALS
                                  │
                 ┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
                 ▼                                 ▼
            REACTIVE                          PROACTIVE
        (Problem-Driven)                  (Opportunity-Driven)
                 │                                 │
    ┌────────────┼────────────┐       ┌───────────┼───────────┐
    ▼            ▼            ▼       ▼           ▼           ▼
  Issue      Incident     Quality   Intent   Governance  Technology
   Bug       Outage      Degradation Change    Update     Evolution
    │           │            │         │          │           │
    └───────────┴────────────┴─────────┴──────────┴───────────┘
                                  │
                                  ▼
                    UNIFIED LEARNING PIPELINE

2.2 Complete Signal Type Reference

CategoryTypeTrigger ExamplePriority Model
ReactiveBUG"Persona X produced incorrect output"Severity (SEV1-4)
ReactiveINCIDENT"Production outage in workflow Y"Severity (SEV1-4)
ReactiveQUALITY_DEGRADATION"Output quality dropped 15%"Severity (SEV1-4)
ReactiveSECURITY"Vulnerability discovered in component Z"Severity (SEV1-4)
ReactivePERFORMANCE_ISSUE"Latency increased 3x"Severity (SEV1-4)
ProactiveINTENT_CHANGE"We will use LangGraph for orchestration"Impact (HIGH/MED/LOW)
ProactiveGOVERNANCE_UPDATE"All LLM calls must be logged"Enforcement (MANDATORY/RECOMMENDED)
ProactiveTECHNOLOGY_EVOLUTION"BGE-M3 embeddings are 40% better"Impact (HIGH/MED/LOW)
ProactiveBUSINESS_REQUIREMENT"SOC2 compliance requires audit trails"Enforcement (MANDATORY/RECOMMENDED)
ProactiveSTRATEGIC_DECISION"We're standardizing on Python 3.12"Impact (HIGH/MED/LOW)
ProactivePOSITIVE_SIGNAL"This approach worked exceptionally well"Impact (HIGH/MED/LOW)
ProactiveMARKET_SIGNAL"Competitor launched feature X"Urgency (HIGH/MED/LOW)

2.3 Signal Data Model (Abstract)

class ChangeSignal:
    """Abstract base for all change signals"""
    id: UUID
    signal_type: SignalType          # BUG, INTENT_CHANGE, GOVERNANCE_UPDATE, etc.
    signal_class: SignalClass        # REACTIVE or PROACTIVE

    # Source identification
    source: SignalSource             # JIRA, PAGERDUTY, MANUAL, STRATEGIC_PLANNING, etc.
    external_id: Optional[str]       # External system reference

    # Content
    title: str
    description: str
    context: Dict[str, Any]          # Signal-specific context

    # Impact assessment
    priority: SignalPriority         # Severity OR Impact level
    affected_targets: List[Target]   # Personas, Teams, Workflows, Templates

    # Analysis results
    analysis: SignalAnalysis         # Root cause OR change driver
    mitigating_factors: List[Factor] # What's working well (Safety-II)

    # Lifecycle
    status: SignalStatus
    created_at: datetime
    analyzed_at: Optional[datetime]
    resolved_at: Optional[datetime]

    # Learning outcomes
    learnings: List[Learning]

Part 3: Analysis Framework

3.1 Analysis Modes

Different signal types require different analysis approaches:

Signal ClassAnalysis ModeKey QuestionMethod
ReactiveRoot Cause Analysis"Why did this fail?"5 Whys, Fishbone, Pattern Detection
ProactiveChange Driver Analysis"Why should we change?"Impact Assessment, Gap Analysis, Risk Evaluation

3.2 Root Cause Categories (Reactive Signals)

For reactive signals (issues, incidents), identify WHY it failed:

CategoryDescriptionExample
KNOWLEDGE_GAPMissing information or contextPersona lacked domain knowledge
CAPABILITY_MISMATCHWrong tool/persona for taskUsed generalist for specialist task
CONFIGURATION_ERRORSystem misconfigurationThreshold set too low
QUALITY_THRESHOLDQuality gate too lenientAccepted 70% when 90% needed
ROUTING_ERRORTask routed incorrectlySent to wrong team
PROCESS_GAPMissing or inadequate processNo escalation path defined
DATA_QUALITYInput data issuesMalformed input not validated
SYSTEM_LIMITATIONTechnical constraintsModel context too small
EXTERNAL_DEPENDENCYThird-party failureAPI provider outage

3.3 Change Driver Categories (Proactive Signals)

For proactive signals, identify WHY we should change:

CategoryDescriptionExample
STRATEGIC_ALIGNMENTAligns with organizational direction"Moving to cloud-native architecture"
GOVERNANCE_MANDATERequired by policy or compliance"GDPR requires data retention limits"
TECHNOLOGY_SUPERIORITYBetter technology available"New model is 40% more accurate"
EFFICIENCY_GAINProven improvement in performance"Approach A is 2x faster"
RISK_MITIGATIONReduces known risk"Current approach has security vulnerability"
MARKET_PRESSURECompetitive necessity"Competitors have feature parity"
COST_OPTIMIZATIONReduces operational costs"New provider is 50% cheaper"
TECHNICAL_DEBTAddresses accumulated debt"Legacy system is unmaintainable"
USER_FEEDBACKDriven by user/customer needs"Users requesting this capability"

3.4 Safety-II: Mitigating Factors

For ALL signal types, capture what's working well:

Factor TypeDescriptionValue
DETECTIONEarly warning, monitoring"Alert fired within 2 minutes"
CONTAINMENTLimited blast radius"Circuit breaker prevented cascade"
RECOVERYQuick recovery mechanisms"Auto-rollback restored in 30 seconds"
ESCALATIONProper escalation paths"On-call responded within SLA"
EXISTING_STRENGTHCurrent capability to preserve"Current approach handles edge cases well"

Part 4: Learning Actions

4.1 Learning Action Types

Learnings translate analysis into specific, actionable changes:

ActionTargetDescriptionApproval
Trait AdjustmentPersonaAdjust confidence/capability scoresAuto if < 10%, else Human
Skill ModificationPersonaAdd/remove/adjust skillsHuman
Capability RestrictionPersonaRestrict capability for severe issuesAlways Human
RAG Knowledge UpdatePersonaAdd/update knowledge baseAuto if confidence ≥ 0.9
Expertise AdjustmentTeamModify team expertise scoresHuman
Routing Rule UpdateTeamChange task routing logicHuman
Composition ChangeTeamModify team structureAlways Human
Gate Threshold AdjustmentWorkflowIncrease quality thresholdsAuto if upward only
Validation Rule AddWorkflowAdd new validation rulesAuto if confidence ≥ 0.9
Escalation Policy UpdateWorkflowModify escalation pathsHuman
Template Version UpdateTemplateCreate new template versionAuto if confidence ≥ 0.9
Template DeprecationTemplateMark template deprecatedAlways Human
Configuration ChangeSystemModify system configurationHuman
Integration UpdateSystemUpdate external integrationsHuman

4.2 Learning Cascade Order

Learnings are applied in a specific order to ensure proper propagation:

LEARNING CASCADE

Level 1: PERSONA_DIRECT
    │     (Personas directly involved in the signal)
    ▼
Level 2: PERSONA_INDIRECT
    │     (Related personas that should learn)
    ▼
Level 3: TEAM
    │     (Teams affected by the signal)
    ▼
Level 4: WORKFLOW
    │     (Workflows/processes affected)
    ▼
Level 5: TEMPLATE
          (Templates/patterns affected)

4.3 Learning Data Model

class Learning:
    """A specific change to be applied"""
    id: UUID
    signal_id: UUID                  # Parent signal

    # What to change
    action_type: LearningActionType  # TRAIT_ADJUSTMENT, RAG_KNOWLEDGE_ADD, etc.
    target_type: LearningTargetType  # PERSONA, TEAM, WORKFLOW, TEMPLATE
    target_id: str                   # Specific target identifier

    # Change details
    change_specification: Dict       # Action-specific change details
    confidence_score: float          # 0.0-1.0 confidence in this learning

    # Approval
    requires_approval: bool
    approval_status: ApprovalStatus  # PENDING, APPROVED, REJECTED
    approved_by: Optional[str]
    approved_at: Optional[datetime]

    # Application
    applied: bool
    applied_at: Optional[datetime]
    rollback_state: Optional[Dict]   # State before change (for rollback)

    # Effectiveness
    effectiveness_score: Optional[float]  # 0.0-1.0 after evaluation
    evaluated_at: Optional[datetime]
    rolled_back: bool
    rollback_reason: Optional[str]

Part 5: Safety Architecture

5.1 Safety Principles

1. Bounded Change: No single signal can make unbounded changes
2. Cooldown Periods: Targets have recovery time between changes
3. Circuit Breaking: Stop if changes consistently fail
4. Auto-Rollback: Ineffective changes automatically revert
5. Human Oversight: High-impact changes require approval
6. Full Auditability: Every change is traceable and reversible

5.2 Over-Correction Guard

Prevents excessive changes from any single signal or over time:

OVER-CORRECTION LIMITS (Configurable)

Per Signal:
├─ MAX_LEARNINGS_PER_SIGNAL = 10
├─ MAX_SINGLE_CHANGE_MAGNITUDE = 20%
└─ MAX_TARGETS_PER_SIGNAL = 5

Per Target (Daily):
├─ MAX_LEARNINGS_PER_PERSONA_PER_DAY = 5
├─ MAX_LEARNINGS_PER_TEAM_PER_DAY = 3
└─ MAX_LEARNINGS_PER_WORKFLOW_PER_DAY = 3

Per Target (Weekly Cumulative):
├─ MAX_CUMULATIVE_CHANGE_PER_PERSONA = 50%
├─ MAX_CUMULATIVE_CHANGE_PER_TEAM = 30%
└─ MAX_CUMULATIVE_CHANGE_PER_WORKFLOW = 30%

Cooldown Periods:
├─ PERSONA_COOLDOWN_HOURS = 4
├─ TEAM_COOLDOWN_HOURS = 12
└─ WORKFLOW_COOLDOWN_HOURS = 24

5.3 Circuit Breaker

Prevents cascading failures when learnings consistently fail:

CIRCUIT BREAKER STATE MACHINE

    ┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │                                          │
    ▼                                          │
┌────────┐  failure_count >= threshold   ┌─────┴────┐
│ CLOSED │ ─────────────────────────────►│   OPEN   │
│        │                               │          │
└────────┘                               └────┬─────┘
    ▲                                         │
    │                                   cooldown expired
    │       success                           │
    │  ◄────────────────────             ┌────▼─────┐
    │                       │            │HALF-OPEN │
    └───────────────────────┴────────────│          │
              failure                    └──────────┘

Configuration:
├─ failure_threshold: 5      # failures to open
├─ window_hours: 24          # counting window
├─ cooldown_hours: 6         # time before half-open
└─ effectiveness_threshold: 0.3  # below = failure

5.4 Effectiveness Tracking

Measures whether learnings achieved their goals:

EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION

Timeline:
├─ Learning Applied ──► Evaluation Window (14 days) ──► Evaluation
│
└─ Metrics Collected:
   ├─ Issue/Signal recurrence rate
   ├─ Target performance metrics
   ├─ Related quality indicators
   └─ User feedback signals

Scoring:
├─ 0.7 - 1.0: EFFECTIVE     → Retain, reinforce pattern
├─ 0.3 - 0.7: MARGINAL      → Retain, continue monitoring
└─ 0.0 - 0.3: INEFFECTIVE   → AUTO-ROLLBACK triggered

5.5 Approval Matrix

Determines whether human approval is required:

Signal PriorityLearning ImpactConfidenceApproval
CRITICAL/MANDATORYAnyAnyHuman Required
HIGHHIGHAnyHuman Required
HIGHMEDIUM< 0.9Human Required
HIGHMEDIUM≥ 0.9Auto-Approved
HIGHLOW≥ 0.8Auto-Approved
MEDIUM/LOWHIGHAnyHuman Required
MEDIUM/LOWMEDIUM< 0.9Human Required
MEDIUM/LOWMEDIUM≥ 0.9Auto-Approved
MEDIUM/LOWLOW≥ 0.7Auto-Approved

Part 6: Implementation Patterns

6.1 Signal Source Adapters

Each signal source has an adapter that normalizes signals:

┌─────────────────┐     ┌─────────────────┐     ┌─────────────────┐
│  JIRA Adapter   │     │PagerDuty Adapter│     │ Manual Entry    │
│                 │     │                 │     │                 │
│ Webhook ──────► │     │ Webhook ──────► │     │ UI/API ───────► │
│                 │     │                 │     │                 │
│ Maps to:        │     │ Maps to:        │     │ Maps to:        │
│ BUG, INCIDENT   │     │ INCIDENT        │     │ Any SignalType  │
└────────┬────────┘     └────────┬────────┘     └────────┬────────┘
         │                       │                       │
         └───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┘
                                 │
                                 ▼
                      ┌─────────────────────┐
                      │  Signal Ingestion   │
                      │      Service        │
                      └─────────────────────┘

6.2 Learning Applicators

Each target type has a specialized applicator:

class LearningApplicator(ABC):
    """Base class for applying learnings to targets"""

    @abstractmethod
    async def can_apply(self, learning: Learning) -> ApplicabilityResult:
        """Check if learning can be applied (safety checks)"""
        pass

    @abstractmethod
    async def apply(self, learning: Learning) -> ApplicationResult:
        """Apply the learning, storing rollback state"""
        pass

    @abstractmethod
    async def rollback(self, learning: Learning) -> RollbackResult:
        """Revert the learning using stored rollback state"""
        pass

    @abstractmethod
    async def evaluate_effectiveness(self, learning: Learning) -> float:
        """Evaluate effectiveness after evaluation window"""
        pass

6.3 EventBus Integration

Signals and learnings publish events for cross-system awareness:

Event TopicTriggerPayload
signals.createdNew signal ingestedsignal_id, type, priority
signals.analyzedAnalysis completedsignal_id, driver/cause
signals.learnings_generatedLearnings createdsignal_id, learning_count
learnings.pending_approvalAwaiting human approvallearning_id, target
learnings.appliedLearning appliedlearning_id, target, change
learnings.rolled_backAuto or manual rollbacklearning_id, reason
safety.circuit_breaker_openedCircuit breaker triggeredtarget_type, target_id
safety.over_correction_blockedChange blocked by guardsignal_id, reason

Part 7: Instantiation Guide

7.1 Creating a New Workflow Instantiation

To create a new workflow (e.g., "Intent Change Workflow"):

Step 1: Define Signal Types
├─ What signals will this workflow process?
├─ What sources will provide these signals?
└─ What priority model applies?

Step 2: Define Analysis Mode
├─ Root Cause Analysis OR Change Driver Analysis?
├─ What categories apply?
└─ What analysis methods (AI, rule-based, human)?

Step 3: Define Learning Actions
├─ What changes can this workflow make?
├─ What targets are affected?
└─ What approval rules apply?

Step 4: Configure Safety Parameters
├─ Over-correction limits (may differ from defaults)
├─ Circuit breaker thresholds
├─ Effectiveness evaluation criteria

Step 5: Implement Adapters
├─ Source adapters for signal ingestion
├─ Target applicators (or reuse existing)
└─ EventBus event definitions

Step 6: Create Documentation
├─ Workflow-specific Confluence page
├─ Link to this framework document
└─ Specific SLOs and metrics

7.2 Existing Instantiation: Issue Log Workflow

AspectIssue Log Implementation
Signal TypesBUG, INCIDENT, QUALITY_DEGRADATION, SECURITY, PERFORMANCE_ISSUE
Signal SourcesJIRA, PagerDuty, Sentry, Manual
Analysis ModeRoot Cause Analysis (5 Whys)
Learning ActionsAll action types supported
Safety ConfigDefault parameters
DocumentationIssue Log Workflow

7.3 Planned Instantiation: Intent Change Workflow

AspectPlanned Implementation
Signal TypesINTENT_CHANGE, STRATEGIC_DECISION
Signal SourcesStrategic Planning Tool, Architecture Decisions, Manual
Analysis ModeChange Driver Analysis
Learning ActionsConfiguration, Integration, Capability updates
Safety ConfigHigher approval thresholds, longer evaluation windows
DocumentationTBD

7.4 Planned Instantiation: Governance Change Workflow

AspectPlanned Implementation
Signal TypesGOVERNANCE_UPDATE, BUSINESS_REQUIREMENT
Signal SourcesCompliance System, Policy Updates, Manual
Analysis ModeChange Driver Analysis (Enforcement focus)
Learning ActionsValidation rules, Gate adjustments, Audit requirements
Safety ConfigMANDATORY signals bypass some safety checks
DocumentationTBD

7.5 Planned Instantiation: Technology Evolution Workflow

AspectPlanned Implementation
Signal TypesTECHNOLOGY_EVOLUTION, POSITIVE_SIGNAL
Signal SourcesBenchmark Results, Performance Monitoring, Research
Analysis ModeChange Driver Analysis (Improvement focus)
Learning ActionsConfiguration updates, Capability additions
Safety ConfigA/B testing integration, gradual rollout
DocumentationTBD

Part 8: Metrics and SLOs

8.1 Framework-Level Metrics

MetricDescriptionTarget
Signal Processing TimeTime from ingestion to learning generation< 4h (reactive), < 24h (proactive)
Learning Application Rate% of learnings successfully applied> 90%
Effectiveness Score (Avg)Average effectiveness across all learnings> 0.6
Rollback Rate% of learnings rolled back< 10%
Circuit Breaker OpensFrequency of circuit breaker triggers< 5/week
Approval Queue TimeTime learnings wait for human approval< 24h
Over-Correction BlocksFrequency of guard blocksMonitoring (no target)

8.2 Per-Instantiation SLOs

Each workflow instantiation defines its own SLOs based on:


Part 9: Governance

9.1 Framework Ownership

RoleResponsibility
Platform ArchitectureFramework design, cross-cutting concerns
Workflow OwnersIndividual instantiation design and operation
Safety CommitteeSafety parameter changes, circuit breaker overrides
ComplianceAudit trail requirements, retention policies

9.2 Change Management

Changes to the framework itself follow a structured process:

1. Proposal: Document proposed change and rationale
2. Impact Assessment: Evaluate impact on existing instantiations
3. Review: Architecture review board approval
4. Implementation: Staged rollout with monitoring
5. Documentation: Update this document and affected workflows

9.3 Audit Requirements

All framework operations are auditable:

RecordRetentionAccess
Signal ingestion2 yearsRead: All, Write: System
Analysis results2 yearsRead: All, Write: System
Learning decisions5 yearsRead: Authorized, Write: System
Approval actions5 yearsRead: Authorized, Write: System
Rollback events5 yearsRead: Authorized, Write: System

DocumentDescription
Issue Log WorkflowFirst instantiation - reactive signals
Persona WorkflowPersona learning integration
Team WorkflowTeam configuration and routing
LLM Selection FrameworkModel selection for analysis
RAG WorkflowKnowledge base for learnings

Appendix A: Glossary

TermDefinition
SignalAny input indicating the system should potentially change
Reactive SignalSignal triggered by a problem (bug, incident, degradation)
Proactive SignalSignal triggered by opportunity (strategy, technology, governance)
LearningA specific, actionable change derived from signal analysis
Learning CascadeOrdered application of learnings across target hierarchy
Safety-IIApproach focusing on what works well, not just failures
Over-Correction GuardMechanism preventing excessive changes
Circuit BreakerMechanism halting changes when failures accumulate
Effectiveness ScoreMetric measuring whether a learning achieved its goal

Appendix B: Change Log

DateVersionChanges
2026-01-211.0Initial framework architecture extracted from Issue Log Workflow

This is a living document. As new workflow instantiations are created, patterns and learnings should be fed back into this framework.

Continue exploring