Core Framing & Invariants
This section stabilizes meaning. It ensures that every other artifact is interpreted through the same lens, regardless of role, function, or vendor context.
| Encourages | Avoids |
|---|---|
| The orchestration-native premise, precisely bounded Non-negotiable system invariants that govern coordination at scale Explicit rejection of implicit coordination as a design strategy | Reverting to integration-first thinking Treating orchestration as workflow Treating AI as a substitute for structure |
System State & Temporal Models
Coordination breaks first at the level of shared state. If different actors reason over different “versions of reality,” no amount of intelligence can reconcile outcomes.
| Encourages | Avoids |
|---|---|
| Canonical ways of representing operational reality Models for state that persist across time, not just transactions Treatment of commitments, promises, and pending decisions | Conflicting recommendations from “correct” models Exception cascades caused by state drift After-the-fact reconciliation becoming normal |
Decision Authority Models
As autonomy increases, authority ambiguity becomes operational risk. This section makes authority designable rather than assumed.
| Encourages | Avoids |
|---|---|
| Explicit models of who or what can decide Conditions under which authority shifts Boundaries between human, automated, and autonomous decisions | Silent delegation to machines Human override as the only safety mechanism Accountability gaps when outcomes are contested |
Coordination vs. Execution Patterns
Most systems conflate coordination and execution. This works only while humans absorb the mismatch. At scale, it fails.
| Encourages | Avoids |
|---|---|
| Clear separation between coordination logic and execution logic Patterns for negotiation, commitment, and resolution Distinction between deciding what vs executing how | Tradeoffs being resolved implicitly by system timing Execution systems being blamed for coordination failures Escalation replacing design |
Runtime Governance Structures
Governance added after incidents is too late. This section makes governance part of system behavior.
| Encourages | Avoids |
|---|---|
| Governance as a runtime concern, not a policy artifact Structures for intervention, explainability, and constraint enforcement Models for governing autonomous behavior as it occurs | Post-hoc controls Blanket autonomy shutdowns after failures “Trust the model” vs “ban the model” dynamics |
Known Failure Modes & Anti-Patterns
Enterprises repeat the same mistakes under different labels. Naming them makes them avoidable.
| Encourages | Avoids |
|---|---|
| Repeatable orchestration failure modes observed across enterprises Structural anti-patterns that emerge when coordination is implicit Early warning signals that systems are approaching coordination limits | Rebuilding legacy operating logic with new tools Treating symptoms as isolated incidents Assuming failures are execution or change-management problems |
(PREVIEW – Coming Soon)
Constraint-Driven Evaluation Criteria
This allows enterprises to engage vendors without surrendering authorship.
| Encourages | Avoids |
|---|---|
| Structural questions to ask of any platform, vendor, or design proposal Criteria derived from coordination and governance constraints Ways to evaluate claims without relying on feature comparisons | Feature-driven selection Vendor abstraction dictating system behavior Lock-in through implicit assumptions |