Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper argues that the performance of organizational AI is limited not by retrieval fidelity, but by the lack of epistemic structure in retrieved knowledge. They introduce OIDA, a framework that structures organizational knowledge with typed Knowledge Objects, importance scores, and contradiction edges, managed by a Knowledge Gravity Engine. OIDA also introduces a "QUESTION" mechanism to surface organizational ignorance, demonstrating its statistical validity and achieving a competitive Epistemic Quality Score compared to full-context baselines with significantly reduced token usage.
Organizational AI's biggest bottleneck isn't finding the right information, but knowing what's actually true, agreed upon, or even known at all.
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 \emph{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 \emph{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.
MIT CSAIL