Skip to content

Rewrite AMOS design proposal as product architecture#3

Merged
EltonChang1 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
paper-release
Jul 13, 2026
Merged

Rewrite AMOS design proposal as product architecture#3
EltonChang1 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
paper-release

Conversation

@EltonChang1

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What changed

  • Rewrote the design proposal as a complete end-to-end product architecture and implementation guide.
  • Defined the analytical-memory theory, analytical state transaction, product surfaces, component boundaries, persistent data contracts, connectors, context compilation, runtime, verification, feedback, APIs, security, deployment, operations, and testing.
  • Added a phased startup build plan, reference repository structure, prototype-to-production gap analysis, and harsh paid-pilot qualification checklist.
  • Updated the README description and rebuilt the single-column PDF while preserving the exact paper title.

Why

The prior proposal mixed product design with research planning and did not provide a sufficiently concrete guide for a startup to build and operate AMOS end to end.

Validation

  • 85 tests passed
  • LaTeX build completed with no warnings, overfull boxes, or undefined references
  • All 16 PDF pages rendered and visually inspected
  • PDF metadata and required-section audit passed
  • Exactly two PDFs remain in papers/
  • Removed cover-detail text remains absent

@EltonChang1 EltonChang1 marked this pull request as ready for review July 13, 2026 05:05
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 13, 2026 05:05
@EltonChang1 EltonChang1 merged commit 4254b6d into main Jul 13, 2026

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR rewrites the AMOS design proposal into a comprehensive end-to-end product architecture and implementation guide, and updates the README description to match the new positioning.

Changes:

  • Updated README copy to describe the design proposal as an end-to-end product architecture/build guide.
  • Reworked papers/design_proposal.tex into a product architecture document covering theory, runtime protocol, data contracts, security, deployment/ops, testing, and a phased build plan.
  • Added longtable usage and updated document headers/metadata/macros to support the new structure.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

File Description
README.md Updates the README’s design-proposal description to reflect the rewritten architecture guide.
papers/design_proposal.tex Rewrites the design proposal into a full product architecture and implementation guide; updates formatting/macros and adds new sections/tables.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.


\paragraph{Logical identity.} Objects are grouped using source-qualified logical keys issued by an owning connector. Cross-source aliases, renames, merges, and splits require explicit alias or supersession edges with authority and effective intervals. Heuristic matches may propose edges but cannot silently establish governing identity. Multiple approved mappings for the same interval produce a conflict.
Missing role coverage yields code{needs\_review} or code{reject}. Ambiguous approved metrics yield a clarification request. Conflicting owner definitions block. Insufficient token budget never silently removes policy, schema, metric, or data-state roles; it drops optional evidence first. Restricted-object counts and identifiers are not revealed to unauthorized users.
@@ -58,731 +60,674 @@
\end{center}

\begin{abstract}
Companies do not need another stateless analytics chatbot. They need a persistent analytical operating system that sits over the company's evolving memory, learns how the business defines and analyzes itself, and automates the complete data-analysis loop from request or signal to verified deliverable. This company memory spans data and schemas, metrics and business ontology, policies and authority, prior incidents and decisions, reviewer corrections, execution history, and output conventions. It is durable and governed outside any one model; each task receives only a bounded, permission-safe active context.
This document is the product architecture and build guide for amos. It defines the theory, system boundaries, data model, runtime protocol, component interfaces, security model, deployment topology, operating model, and phased implementation plan needed to build amos from an empty repository to a production service. The intended reader is a startup engineering team that must make the system work, operate it safely, and know when each layer is complete.

The durable advantage is not access to a particular model. It compounds through six assets: (1) company-specific analytical memory accumulated across years of definitions, corrections, and decisions; (2) execution history containing successful plans, failed queries, useful segmentations, and reviewer behavior; (3) governed feedback that survives the task in which it was given; (4) an analytical dependency graph linking claims, metrics, data, documents, code, decisions, and reports; (5) connectors that understand versions, permissions, schema change, and source semantics; and (6) a reliable runtime that repeats, recovers, validates, and preserves work across model upgrades.
Recency alone does not determine truth. The default authority order is owner-approved $>$ reviewer-approved $>$ user note $>$ model hypothesis $>$ untrusted external content. Effective time determines when a statement applies; recording time determines when amos learned it. Supersession edges explicitly replace one logical version with another. Conflicting owner-approved objects for the same interval block publication until resolved.

The threat model includes malicious retrieved content, malicious authorized users, compromised documents, cross-tenant index leakage, permission-revocation races, provenance expansion, multi-turn poisoning, inference through filtered results, and denial of service. Source-system compromise, aggregate inference below source-enforced privacy thresholds, and side channels outside the measured interfaces are documented residual risks.
For claim $c$, amos records edges to computations, data versions, metrics, schemas, documents, feedback, model outputs, verification records, and review decisions:

\subsection{Ideal First Customer and Initial Wedge}
An atxn record contains:
\newblock \emph{International Journal of Digital Curation}, 10(1):298--313, 2015.

\end{thebibliography}
\amos becomes a product when persistent company knowledge, model reasoning, tool execution, verification, human judgment, and artifacts are joined by one enforceable operating contract. Typed analytical memory provides durable state. The bounded context compiler supplies only valid and permitted working memory. atxn makes admission, version observation, capabilities, validation, commit, replay, and invalidation explicit. Claim dependencies make conclusions inspectable and change-aware. External enforcement keeps models useful without making them trusted authorities.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants