Files
ATOCore/docs/architecture/knowledge-architecture.md
Anto01 b86181eb6c docs: knowledge architecture — dual-layer model + domain knowledge
Comprehensive architecture doc covering:
- The problem (applied vs domain knowledge separation)
- The quality bar (earned insight vs common knowledge, with examples)
- Five-tier context assembly with budget allocation
- Knowledge domains (10 domains: physics through finance)
- Domain tag encoding (prefix in content, no schema migration)
- Full flow: capture → extract → triage → surface
- Cross-project example (p04 insight surfaces in p06 context)
- Future directions: personal branch, multi-model, reinforcement

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-13 09:14:32 -04:00

207 lines
8.0 KiB
Markdown

# AtoCore Knowledge Architecture
## The Problem
Engineering work produces two kinds of knowledge simultaneously:
1. **Applied knowledge** — specific to the project being worked on
("the p04 support pad layout is driven by CTE gradient analysis")
2. **Domain knowledge** — generalizable insight earned through that work
("Zerodur CTE gradient dominates WFE at fast focal ratios")
A system that only stores applied knowledge loses the general insight.
A system that mixes them pollutes project context with cross-project
noise. AtoCore needs both — separated, but both growing organically
from the same conversations.
## The Quality Bar
**AtoCore stores earned insight, not information.**
The test: "Would a competent engineer need experience to know this,
or could they find it in 30 seconds?"
| Store | Don't store |
|-------|-------------|
| "Preston removal model breaks down below 5N because the contact assumption fails" | "Preston's equation relates removal rate to pressure and velocity" |
| "m=1 (coma) is NOT correctable by force modulation (score 0.09)" | "Zernike polynomials describe wavefront aberrations" |
| "At F/1.2, CTE gradient costs ~3nm WFE and drives pad placement" | "Zerodur CTE is 0.05 ppm/K" |
| "Quilting limit for 16-inch tool is 234N" | "Quilting is a mid-spatial-frequency artifact in polishing" |
The bar is enforced in the LLM extraction system prompt
(`src/atocore/memory/extractor_llm.py`) and the auto-triage prompt
(`scripts/auto_triage.py`). Both explicitly list examples of what
qualifies and what doesn't.
## Architecture
### Five-tier context assembly
When AtoCore builds a context pack for any LLM query, it assembles
five tiers in strict trust order:
```
Tier 1: Trusted Project State [project-specific, highest trust]
Curated key-value entries from the project state API.
Example: "decision/vendor_path: Twyman-Green preferred, 4D
technical lead but cost-challenged"
Tier 2: Identity / Preferences [global, always included]
Who the user is and how they work.
Example: "Antoine Letarte, mechanical/optical engineer at
Atomaste" / "No API keys — uses OAuth exclusively"
Tier 3: Project Memories [project-specific]
Reinforced memories from the reflection loop, scoped to the
queried project. Example: "Firmware interface contract is
invariant: controller-job.v1 in, run-log.v1 out"
Tier 4: Domain Knowledge [cross-project]
Earned engineering insight with project="" and a domain tag.
Surfaces in ALL project packs when query-relevant.
Example: "[materials] Zerodur CTE gradient dominates WFE at
fast focal ratios — costs ~3nm at F/1.2"
Tier 5: Retrieved Chunks [project-boosted, lowest trust]
Vector-similarity search over the ingested document corpus.
Project-hinted but not filtered — cross-project docs can
appear at lower rank.
```
### Budget allocation (at default 3000 chars)
| Tier | Budget ratio | Approx chars | Entries |
|------|-------------|-------------|---------|
| Project State | 20% | 600 | all curated entries |
| Identity/Preferences | 5% | 150 | 1 memory |
| Project Memories | 25% | 750 | 2-3 memories |
| Domain Knowledge | 10% | 300 | 1-2 memories |
| Retrieved Chunks | 40% | 1200 | 2-4 chunks |
Trim order when budget is tight: chunks first, then domain knowledge,
then project memories, then identity, then project state last.
### Knowledge domains
The LLM extractor tags domain knowledge with one of these domains:
| Domain | What qualifies |
|--------|---------------|
| `physics` | Optical physics, wave propagation, diffraction, thermal effects |
| `materials` | Material properties in context, CTE behavior, stress limits |
| `optics` | Lens/mirror design, aberration analysis, metrology techniques |
| `mechanics` | Structural FEA insights, support system design, kinematics |
| `manufacturing` | Polishing, grinding, machining, process control |
| `metrology` | Measurement systems, interferometry, calibration techniques |
| `controls` | PID tuning, force control, servo systems, real-time constraints |
| `software` | Architecture patterns, testing strategies, deployment insights |
| `math` | Numerical methods, optimization, statistical analysis |
| `finance` | Cost modeling, procurement strategy, budget optimization |
New domains can be added by updating the system prompt in
`extractor_llm.py` and `batch_llm_extract_live.py`.
### How domain knowledge is stored
Domain tags are embedded as a prefix in the memory content:
```
memory_type: knowledge
project: "" ← empty = cross-project
content: "[materials] Zerodur CTE gradient dominates WFE at F/1.2"
```
The `[domain]` prefix is a lightweight encoding that avoids a schema
migration. The context builder's query-relevance ranking matches on
domain terms naturally (a query about "materials" or "CTE" will rank
a `[materials]` memory higher). A future migration can parse the
prefix into a proper `domain` column.
## How knowledge flows
### Capture → Extract → Triage → Surface
```
1. CAPTURE
Claude Code (Stop hook) or OpenClaw (plugin)
→ POST /interactions with reinforce=true
→ Interaction stored on Dalidou
2. EXTRACT (nightly cron, 03:00 UTC)
batch_llm_extract_live.py runs claude -p sonnet
→ For each interaction, the LLM decides:
- Is this project-specific? → candidate with project=X
- Is this generalizable insight? → candidate with domain=Y, project=""
- Is it both? → TWO candidates emitted
- Is it common knowledge? → skip (quality bar)
→ Candidates persisted as status=candidate
3. TRIAGE (nightly, immediately after extraction)
auto_triage.py runs claude -p sonnet
→ Each candidate classified: promote / reject / needs_human
→ Auto-promote at confidence ≥ 0.8 + no duplicate
→ Auto-reject stale snapshots, duplicates, common knowledge
→ Only needs_human reaches the operator
4. SURFACE (every context/build query)
→ Project-specific memories appear in Tier 3
→ Domain knowledge appears in Tier 4 (regardless of project)
→ Both are query-ranked by overlap-density
```
### Example: knowledge earned on p04 surfaces on p06
Working on p04-gigabit, you discover that Zerodur CTE gradient is
the dominant WFE contributor at fast focal ratios. The extraction
produces:
```json
[
{"type": "project", "content": "CTE gradient analysis drove the
M1 support pad layout — 2nd largest WFE contributor after gravity",
"project": "p04-gigabit", "domain": "", "confidence": 0.6},
{"type": "knowledge", "content": "Zerodur CTE gradient dominates
WFE contribution at fast focal ratios (F/1.2 = ~3nm)",
"project": "", "domain": "materials", "confidence": 0.6}
]
```
Two weeks later, working on p06-polisher (which also uses Zerodur):
```
Query: "thermal effects on polishing accuracy"
Project: p06-polisher
Tier 3 (Project Memories):
[project] Calibration loop adjusts Preston kp from surface measurements...
Tier 4 (Domain Knowledge):
[materials] Zerodur CTE gradient dominates WFE contribution at fast
focal ratios — THIS CAME FROM P04 WORK
```
The insight crosses over without any manual curation.
## Future directions
### Personal knowledge branch
The same architecture supports personal domains (health, finance,
personal) by adding new domain tags and a trust boundary so
Atomaste project data never leaks into personal packs. The domain
system is domain-agnostic — it doesn't care whether the domain is
"optics" or "nutrition".
### Multi-model extraction
Different models can specialize: sonnet for extraction, opus or
Gemini for triage review. Independent validation reduces correlated
blind spots on what qualifies as "earned insight" vs "common
knowledge."
### Reinforcement-based domain promotion
A domain-knowledge memory that gets reinforced across multiple
projects (its content echoed in p04, p05, and p06 responses)
accumulates confidence faster than a project-specific memory.
High-confidence domain memories could auto-promote to a "verified
knowledge" tier above regular domain knowledge.