Intermediate Artifacts as First-Class Citizens: A Data Model for Durable Intermediate Artifacts in Agentic Systems

Large language model systems are increasingly deployed as agentic workflows that interleave reasoning, tool use, memory, and iterative refinement. These systems are effective at producing answers, but they often rely on implicit conversational state, making it difficult to preserve stable work products, isolate irrelevant updates, or propagate changes through intermediate artifacts. We introduce execution lineage: an execution model in which AI-native work is represented as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of artifact-producing computations with explicit dependencies, stable intermediate boundaries, and identity-based replay. The goal is not to make the model a better one-shot writer, but to make evolving AI-generated work maintainable under change. We compare execution-lineage replay against loop-centric update baselines on two controlled policy-memo update tasks. In an unrelated-branch update, DAG replay preserved the final memo exactly in all runs, with zero churn and zero unrelated-branch contamination, while loop baselines regenerated the memo and frequently imported unrelated context. In an intermediate-artifact edit, all systems reflected the new constraint in the final memo, but only DAG replay achieved perfect upstream preservation, downstream propagation, unaffected-artifact preservation, and cross-artifact consistency. These results show that final answer quality and maintained-state quality are distinct. Strong loop baselines can remain competitive at producing polished final outputs when the task is a bounded synthesis/update problem and all current sources fit in context, but immediate task success can mask partial state inconsistency that may compound over future revisions. Execution lineage provides stronger guarantees about what should change, what should remain stable, and how work evolves across revisions.

F(AI)2R is FAIR research with AI in the loop, twice: an AI-assisted authoring pass and a machine-readable audit pass over every artefact. AI systems now draft, refactor, and verify research artefacts, yet their contributions are rarely recorded in a form a later human or machine can audit. Building on the original F(AI)2R experiment, we generalize its provenance model beyond scholarly writing into aiprov, a PROV-O extension covering any AI-in-the-loop artefact, and we package the method as an executable skill that an AI agent operates itself: setup asks the human operator for their ORCID ID, resolves their identity from the public registry, and scaffolds continuous integration that gates every push on graph conformance and publishes the current build of this very paper. The paper is its own case study. Every activity, claim, and source in its production is recorded in the repository's provenance graph under two invariants: no parentless claim, and verification rungs that only humans may grant.

An AI system's output is not the fact or world state it appears to describe, but rather an engineered representation. We propose a semantic framework to describe AI systems, to be able to examine the correctness of such representations. To do so, we distinguish what is justified by accepted domain knowledge, what reference sources say, and what the system can currently use. This allows us to give precise definitions to common failures: extrapolation, refuted or unsupported assertion, sources versus knowledge mismatch, stale or refuted source, added hypotheses, unsupported use... We hope our framework gives a useful vocabulary for specifying and checking AI systems whose outputs, citations, tool calls, and world-changing actions must be justified by reliable claims and explicit authority rather than apparent fluency.