When Does an Added Planning Capability Create Operational Value? An Observable Evidence Standard
Authors: Yihua Xu, Yan Lyu, Jize Li, Jiani He, You Lin, Yidan Hu, Rubing Qiang
Organizations: Independent Researcher, San Jose, California, USA · Independent Researchers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA · Independent Researcher, Seattle, Washington, USA · Independent Researchers, New York, New York, USA · Independent Researcher, Austin, Texas, USA
Industrial artificial intelligence (AI) planning systems combine predictive models, optimization logic, controls, and governance rules, but improvement in the complete policy does not show whether one addition made an independent contribution or whether that contribution justifies its burden. We address this attribution problem with an observable evidence standard that separates opportunity to act, executed-plan change, operational consequence, equivalence, uncertainty, and operating scope. Using forecast-to-plan replay on Favorita, M5, and Walmart data, we apply the standard to heterogeneous planning additions. Three limits of single-indicator evaluation emerge. First, a composite policy can conceal negligible component contribution: one control changed only 15 of 681 executed plans. Second, changing execution does not guarantee stable benefit: the evaluated multi-period capability helped in several long-lead settings but was 7.6% more costly under tight capacity. Third, indirect evidence can prioritize review but cannot complete attribution. Independent runs produced different paths in 19 of 599 cases that a rule-based check predicted would be unchanged. Although a lower-cost diagnostic matched the full-evaluation winner in only 55.0% of cases, it selected an option within the 10−6 cost-equivalence tolerance in 79.5%; the remaining cases prevented the proxy from authorizing acceptance. These experiments establish capability-level contribution evidence; the organization completes the value decision by weighing it against implementation and sustaining burden. The resulting capability evidence record links the observations to validation, deployment scope, fallback, monitoring, redesign, and retirement decisions.
The economic value of inference depends on how capacity and task information are distributed across stages of AI production. We study these organizational margins using controlled workflow experiments on externally verified software-engineering tasks. In two matched resource panels, direct execution records the same success rate of 59.6 percent at logical-token ceilings of 12,000 and 24,000, while success under information-constrained planning rises from 36.2 to 51.2 percent. The planning disadvantage narrows by 15.0 percentage points (95 percent task-cluster bootstrap interval: 4.2 to 25.8). A strict read-only planning campaign varies whether the planner sees the task issue. At 12,000 tokens, issue access raises success by about 16 percentage points over issue-hidden planning. Compared with direct execution, task-informed planning is about 10 points lower at 12,000 tokens; at 24,000 tokens, it shows a 29.6-point advantage. In the resource panels, direct execution uses substantially less than either ceiling, while the planning workflow's binding rate falls from 46.2 to 0.8 percent and downstream execution accounts for 89.9 percent of the increase in total use. Scale determines the capacity available to a system; workflow and information structure shape the productive value
Yukun Zhang, Kemu Xu, Yishen Chen
The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China · University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, United Kingdom · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen Shenzhen, China
Systems that automate scientific discovery must repeatedly decide which experiment to run, which hypothesis to test, which tool to build, and when to stop. Many systems make these decisions by maximizing a myopic score such as expected information gain per unit cost or a learned plausibility score. We identify a structural limitation of this approach. Some actions are constructive: they acquire an epistemic capability (an instrument, assay, pipeline, simulator, or abstraction) whose value lies not in the information returned immediately but in the future actions it makes available. When the least-cost route to a confident answer requires a chain of such constructions, a planner that scores actions only by information obtainable within a bounded horizon cannot value the first construction: it yields no information within the horizon and is dominated by any measurement with positive information, however small. We formulate goal-directed discovery as a stochastic shortest-path problem in belief space in which constructive experiments change the downstream action graph, and prove that for every lookahead depth d there is an instance on which every myopic information-maximizing planner has an unbounded approximation ratio, and a related instance on which it never reaches the goal. The mechanism is a capability-indistinguishability lemma: within the horizon, acquiring a capability can be observationally indistinguishable from paying for a null action. This establishes capability gating as a reachability axis of difficulty distinct from curvature (submodularity) and information order (adaptivity gaps). We introduce CG-Plan, an incremental replanner with a capability-aware cost-to-go heuristic h = h_cap + h_exp. In a controlled testbed, the performance gap appears only under gating, persists for every fixed horizon, and arises when near-miss hypotheses come from a data-consistent proposer.
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve and mature, recent AI practices have moved beyond large language models (LLMs) and text or image generation tasks, increasingly integrating tools, agents, and harnesses to solve real business and industrial problems. However, the power of AI is not verified under these real-world complex systems for various reasons, considering reliability, feasibility, resilience, and responsibility requirements in real commercial and industrial operations. This study synthesizes adjacent research and introduces Enactive AI as a conceptual framework for enterprise and industry reasoning, site-level decision support, and execution feedback. Four complementary roles organize the framework: an Organizational World defines operations management logic and an organizational behavior world model behind an enterprise from a strategic-institutional horizon; a Site World defines a physically bounded industrial optimization and execution world model from an operational-realization horizon; Schema Intelligence provides the coupling mechanism between two world models to weave various AI applications via two models; and Enactive Decision Cycle triggers the self-evolving dynamic process to update and audit the entire framework. By foregrounding decision intelligence in complex systems, Enactive AI expands the frontier of AI from model capability to system-aware action, opening new possibilities for scalable, governable, and socially valuable AI deployment. Enactive AI points toward a future in which AI progress is measured not only by what models can generate or automate, but by how reliably intelligent systems can support consequential action, responsible governance, and durable social value in the complex systems that shape modern life, which we believe will define the next frontier of AI research for enterprise-level and industrial complex systems.
Zuojun Max Shen, Yuan Qu, Pujun Zhang +2
The University of Hong Kong & OptiMax AI Limited, Hong Kong SAR, China