Toward a Compositional Knowledge Architecture for a Shared Organizational Cortex

Organizational knowledge used by AI agents typically lacks epistemic structure: retrieval systems surface semantically relevant content without distinguishing binding decisions from abandoned hypotheses, contested claims from settled ones, or known facts from unresolved questions. We argue that the ceiling on organizational AI is not retrieval fidelity but epistemic fidelity--the system's ability to represent commitment strength, contradiction status, and organizational ignorance as computable properties. We present OIDA, a framework that structures organizational knowledge as typed Knowledge Objects carrying epistemic class, importance scores with class-specific decay, and signed contradiction edges. The Knowledge Gravity Engine maintains scores deterministically with proved convergence guarantees (sufficient condition: max degree $< 7$; empirically robust to degree 43). OIDA introduces QUESTION-as-modeled-ignorance: a primitive with inverse decay that surfaces what an organization does not know with increasing urgency--a mechanism absent from all surveyed systems. We describe the Epistemic Quality Score (EQS), a five-component evaluation methodology with explicit circularity analysis. In a controlled comparison ($n{=}10$ response pairs), OIDA's RAG condition (3,868 tokens) achieves EQS 0.530 vs.\ 0.848 for a full-context baseline (108,687 tokens); the $28.1\times$ token budget difference is the primary confound. The QUESTION mechanism is statistically validated (Fisher $p{=}0.0325$, OR$=21.0$). The formal properties are established; the decisive ablation at equal token budget (E4) is pre-registered and not yet run.

For decades, data engineering has developed mature architectural principles for integrating, governing, validating, cataloging, and serving organizational data. The rise of large language models does not eliminate these concerns; it exposes a broader version of them. Organizational knowledge is becoming executable infrastructure: systems increasingly retrieve it, assemble it, reason over it, and act on it. This paper argues that enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) systems suggest a transition toward an architectural discipline for representing, maintaining, governing, and operationally delivering organizational knowledge. We refer to this discipline as knowledge architecture. We offer a conceptual model and taxonomy showing how classical data-engineering guarantees must be redefined when the managed unit shifts from records to knowledge artifacts: extract, transform, and load (ETL) becomes knowledge ingestion, change-data capture (CDC) becomes knowledge change detection, lineage becomes provenance, catalogs become knowledge catalogs, materialized views become knowledge views, and medallion architectures become raw--curated--operational knowledge layers. Emerging formats such as large language model (LLM) Wiki and the Open Knowledge Format (OKF) are treated as early evidence of this transition, not as its endpoint. The central claim is that knowledge architecture becomes useful when organizational knowledge ceases to be a passive information resource and becomes an operational asset used by humans, agents, workflows, and models to execute work.

The two most influential cognitive architecture frameworks for AI agents, CoALA [21] and JEPA [12], both lack an explicit Knowledge layer with its own persistence semantics. This gap produces a category error: systems apply cognitive decay to factual claims, or treat facts and experiences with identical update mechanics. We survey persistence semantics across existing memory systems and identify eight convergence points, from Karpathy's LLM Knowledge Base [10] to the BEAM benchmark's near-zero contradiction-resolution scores [22], all pointing to related architectural gaps. We propose a four-layer decom position (Knowledge, Memory, Wisdom, Intelligence) where each layer has fundamentally different persistence semantics: indefinite supersession, Ebbinghaus decay, evidence-gated revision, and ephemeral inference respectively. Companion implementations in Python and Rust demonstrate the architectural separation is feasible. We borrow terminology from cognitive science as a useful analogy (the Knowledge/Memory distinction echoes Tulving's trichotomy), but our layers are engineering constructs justified by persistence-semantics requirements, not by neural architecture. We argue that these distinctions demand distinct persistence semantics in engineering implementations, and that no current framework or system provides this.