platform-admin/boc
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
9e4ebeea1aa4679ca00b951fdc58d376419ce821
boc/docs/design/DECISION_MODEL_REVIEW.md
T
Bernt f05fded74e docs: Decision Pipeline v1.0 + Learning Loop + Control Intelligence + 3 Customer Cases 
- Added Step 7: Learning (feedback loop from Business Impact to Intelligence)
- Control Intelligence definition: LandveX produces Control Intelligence, not AI
- Three target customer cases defined:
  1. Municipality — Inspect or wait? (Maintenance prioritization)
  2. Property Owner — Repair now or plan later? (Cost vs risk)
  3. Contractor/Operations — Which action first? (Operational planning)
- Validation requirements: Run each case through full pipeline, document breaks,
  revise only after data contradicts model
- Communication principle: Observation → Analysis → Recommendation
  (AI is implementation, recommendation is product)

Rationale: Stop modeling, start observing. Model changes when data contradicts
it, not before. Three real customer cases before freezing.
2026-07-02 12:13:25 +00:00

218 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

# DECISION MODEL v1.0 — MANUAL REVIEW
**Validation of 8 Scenarios Against Decision Object Structure**
| | |
|---|---|
| **Version** | 1.0 |
| **Date** | 2026-07-02 |
| **Reviewer** | AI Agent |
| **Rule** | No changes to model during review |
---
## Review Protocol
For each scenario, answer:
| # | Control | Question | Result |
|---|---------|----------|--------|
| 1 | **Decision** | Is this a real decision, not just an observation? | Yes / No |
| 2 | **Verb** | Can the decision be expressed as a verb? | Yes / No |
| 3 | **Information** | Is more information needed before deciding? | Yes / No |
| 4 | **Decision Object** | Are all 7 fields used? | List unused |
| 5 | **Missing Fields** | Is anything missing? | List missing |
| 6 | **Explainability** | Can the chain Reality → Observation → Evidence → Finding → Decision be followed? | Yes / No |
| 7 | **Domain Object** | Does the Decision Object reference at least one concrete domain object? | Yes / No |
| 8 | **Outcome** | Pass / Observation / Fail | |
---
## Scenario 1: Road Crack (Maintenance)
| # | Control | Result | Notes |
|---|---------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Decision | ✅ Yes | "Prioritize inspection" is a decision |
| 2 | Verb | ✅ Yes | "Inspect" |
| 3 | Information | ✅ No | All needed info present |
| 4 | Decision Object | ✅ All used | Decision, Why, Evidence, Confidence, Consequence, Action, Business Impact |
| 5 | Missing Fields | ✅ None | |
| 6 | Explainability | ✅ Yes | Photo → crack detected → 3 observations → degraded 15% → inspect |
| 7 | Domain Object | ✅ Yes | "Road 1132" |
| 8 | **Outcome** | **✅ PASS** | |
---
## Scenario 2: Damaged Facade (Safety)
| # | Control | Result | Notes |
|---|---------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Decision | ✅ Yes | "Immediate safety inspection" is a decision |
| 2 | Verb | ✅ Yes | "Inspect" (urgent) |
| 3 | Information | ✅ No | All needed info present |
| 4 | Decision Object | ✅ All used | All 7 fields |
| 5 | Missing Fields | ✅ None | |
| 6 | Explainability | ✅ Yes | Drone video → panel loose → weather data → integrity compromised → immediate inspection |
| 7 | Domain Object | ✅ Yes | "Building A7" |
| 8 | **Outcome** | **✅ PASS** | |
---
## Scenario 3: Broken Road Sign (Compliance)
| # | Control | Result | Notes |
|---|---------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Decision | ✅ Yes | "Replace sign" is a decision |
| 2 | Verb | ✅ Yes | "Replace" |
| 3 | Information | ✅ No | All needed info present |
| 4 | Decision Object | ✅ All used | All 7 fields |
| 5 | Missing Fields | ✅ None | |
| 6 | Explainability | ✅ Yes | Photo → sign damaged → traffic data → control compromised → replace |
| 7 | Domain Object | ✅ Yes | "Intersection X" |
| 8 | **Outcome** | **✅ PASS** | |
---
## Scenario 4: Vegetation Blocking Sight (Risk Reduction)
| # | Control | Result | Notes |
|---|---------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Decision | ✅ Yes | "Schedule vegetation removal" is a decision |
| 2 | Verb | ✅ Yes | "Remove" |
| 3 | Information | ✅ No | All needed info present |
| 4 | Decision Object | ✅ All used | All 7 fields |
| 5 | Missing Fields | ✅ None | |
| 6 | Explainability | ✅ Yes | Photos → vegetation high → growth trend → degradation → schedule removal |
| 7 | Domain Object | ✅ Yes | "Intersection Y" |
| 8 | **Outcome** | **✅ PASS** | |
---
## Scenario 5: Parking Area Wear (Investment Priority)
| # | Control | Result | Notes |
|---|---------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Decision | ✅ Yes | "Include in budget" is a decision |
| 2 | Verb | ✅ Yes | "Include" / "Budget" |
| 3 | Information | ⚠️ Observation | May need cost estimate for full decision |
| 4 | Decision Object | ✅ All used | All 7 fields |
| 5 | Missing Fields | ⚠️ Observation | "Cost estimate" could strengthen decision |
| 6 | Explainability | ✅ Yes | Photos → wear → usage data → need resurfacing → budget |
| 7 | Domain Object | ✅ Yes | "Parking Area Z" |
| 8 | **Outcome** | **⚠️ OBSERVATION** | Decision valid but could be strengthened with cost estimate |
---
## Scenario 6: Cosmetic Scratch (No Action)
| # | Control | Result | Notes |
|---|---------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Decision | ✅ Yes | "No action, continue monitoring" is a conscious decision |
| 2 | Verb | ✅ Yes | "Monitor" |
| 3 | Information | ✅ No | All needed info present |
| 4 | Decision Object | ✅ All used | All 7 fields |
| 5 | Missing Fields | ✅ None | |
| 6 | Explainability | ✅ Yes | Photo → scratches → no functional impact → normal wear → monitor |
| 7 | Domain Object | ✅ Yes | "Sign S15" |
| 8 | **Outcome** | **✅ PASS** | |
---
## Scenario 7: Mixed Evidence Sources (Complex)
| # | Control | Result | Notes |
|---|---------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Decision | ✅ Yes | "Inspect drainage, prioritize if recurs" is a decision |
| 2 | Verb | ✅ Yes | "Inspect" / "Prioritize" |
| 3 | Information | ✅ No | All needed info present |
| 4 | Decision Object | ✅ All used | All 7 fields |
| 5 | Missing Fields | ✅ None | |
| 6 | Explainability | ✅ Yes | Photo + sensor + weather → pooling → historical data → drainage inadequate → inspect |
| 7 | Domain Object | ✅ Yes | "Road Segment R42" |
| 8 | **Outcome** | **✅ PASS** | |
---
## Scenario 8: Insufficient Evidence (No Recommendation)
| # | Control | Result | Notes |
|---|---------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Decision | ⚠️ Observation | "No recommendation yet" is not a decision, it's a deferral |
| 2 | Verb | ⚠️ Observation | "Collect" is an action, not a final decision |
| 3 | Information | ✅ Yes | More data needed |
| 4 | Decision Object | ⚠️ Observation | "Consequence" and "Business Impact" are weak |
| 5 | Missing Fields | ⚠️ Observation | "Confidence" is low by definition — could be explicit |
| 6 | Explainability | ✅ Yes | Blurry photo → unclear → conflicting AI → inconclusive |
| 7 | Domain Object | ⚠️ Observation | Location unclear due to low GPS precision |
| 8 | **Outcome** | **⚠️ OBSERVATION** | Valid outcome but not a decision — model handles it correctly |
---
## Review Summary
| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| **Total Scenarios** | 8 |
| **Pass** | 6 |
| **Observation** | 2 |
| **Fail** | 0 |
### Recurring Unused Fields
None. All 7 fields used across all scenarios.
### Recurring Missing Fields
- **Cost estimate** (Scenario 5) — could strengthen investment decisions
- **Explicit low confidence** (Scenario 8) — could clarify insufficient evidence
### Recurring Unclear Verbs
None. All decisions expressible as verbs.
### Domain Object References
| Scenario | Domain Object | Status |
|----------|--------------|--------|
| 1 | Road 1132 | ✅ |
| 2 | Building A7 | ✅ |
| 3 | Intersection X | ✅ |
| 4 | Intersection Y | ✅ |
| 5 | Parking Area Z | ✅ |
| 6 | Sign S15 | ✅ |
| 7 | Road Segment R42 | ✅ |
| 8 | (unclear GPS) | ⚠️ |
---
## Conclusion
**Recommendation: READY FOR INVARIANCE TEST**
The Decision Object structure handles all 8 scenarios without modification. Two scenarios generate observations (not failures) — the model correctly handles "insufficient evidence" and "needs more data" cases.
**No changes needed to Decision Model v1.0.**
---
## Next Steps
1. ✅ Manual Review — COMPLETE
2. ⏳ Decision Invariance Test — Ready to run
3. ⏳ Evidence Variation Test — Ready to run
4. ⏳ Empirical validation with real data — Pending
---
## ändringshistoria
| Version | Datum | Beskrivning |
|---------|-------|-------------|
| 1.0 | 2026-07-02 | Manual review of 8 scenarios — 6 pass, 2 observation, 0 fail |
---
## STATUS
**REVIEW COMPLETE — READY FOR INVARIANCE TEST**
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink