arXiv:2610.42066v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: AI answers require more than apparent correctness: reviewers need to inspect their recorded basis. We introduce the Knowledge Layer Model (KLM), an open, implementation-neutral specification for inference records with versioned epistemic assessments, evidence relations, and explicit unknowns. SEDIM, the knowledge and evidence architecture of Nage AI OS, is a reference implementation. We reference KLM v0.3 (repository tag v0.3.0). Empirical material consists of separate internal experiments, not end-to-end validation. A historical platform-domain routing benchmark reports 137/150 classifications across 15 classes (91.3%; nominal 95% Wilson interval 85.7-94.9%); the numerator is recovered from a rounded summary, and historical example membership is unverified. A native-model weight-path configuration yielded 0/15 successful answers in a corrected two-source test. A capacity-growth comparison could not establish a reliable effect because of a defective legacy scorer and missing original outputs. Lexical and scoped diagnostics each yielded AUC 0.008 for silent-versus-contradicted examples, below the registered minimum of 0.65. Legacy packing lost gold-containing text in 118/221 selected cases; repaired packing retained it in 221/221. These measure text presence, not answer quality. Python and TypeScript verifiers reportedly agreed on six checks per synthetic fixture; a separate production disclosure was not accepted. Restoration, re-derivation, human-rubric support, boundary isolation, and bounded-response evaluations remain proposed. Findings are internal and author-reported; historical observations are distinguished from later reproductions. Evidence visibility does not establish correctness, causal reliance, security, or regulatory compliance. Independent replication and a complete public audit package remain future work.
arxiv
Knowledge Layer Model: A Spec for Evidence-Visible AI Output with Mixed Results
The paper introduces the Knowledge Layer Model (KLM), an open specification for inference records with epistemic assessments and evidence relations, implemented in the Nage AI OS as SEDIM. It reports internal experiments: a routing benchmark achieved 91.3% accuracy, but diagnostics failed to distinguish silent from contradicted examples (AUC 0.008), and a native-model configuration produced 0/15 successful answers. The authors emphasize that evidence visibility does not guarantee correctness and call for independent replication.
Offers a concrete, recent specification for AI output transparency with honest negative results, valuable for researchers and practitioners focused on auditability.
Comments & Questions (0)
No comments yet
Be the first to comment!