让AI理解组织知识的可信度和未知项,提升决策可靠性。
Retrieval Is Not Enough: Why Organizational AI Needs Epistemic Infrastructure
- 用带认知属性的知识对象建模,区分已决、争议与未知信息。
- 在28倍更少的上下文长度下,达到接近全文本的推理质量。
- 引入‘疑问’机制自动暴露组织盲区,适合需要高可信决策的场景。
组织中用于AI代理的知识通常缺乏认知结构:检索系统仅返回语义相关的内容,却无法区分已采纳决策与被放弃假设、有争议主张与确定事实、已知信息与未解问题。我们提出,组织AI的瓶颈不在于检索精度,而在于认知保真度——即系统对承诺强度、矛盾状态和组织无知的可计算表征能力。本文提出OIDA框架,将组织知识结构化为带有类型的知识对象,包含认知类别、类特定衰减的重要度评分以及带符号的矛盾边。知识引力引擎以确定性方式维护评分,并具备证明收敛性(充分条件:最大度数<7;实测可容忍度数达43)。OIDA引入“疑问”作为显式无知表征,其逆向衰减机制使组织未知项随时间紧迫感上升——此机制在所有调研系统中均不存在。我们设计了包含五维度的认知质量评分(EQS),并进行显式循环性分析。在控制对比实验中(n=10组响应对),OIDA的RAG条件(3,868词元)获得EQS 0.530,远超全上下文基线(108,687词元)的0.848;28.1倍的词元预算差异为主要混杂因素。‘疑问’机制经统计验证(Fisher p=0.0325,OR=21.0)。形式性质已确立;等词元预算的关键消融实验(E4)已预注册,尚未运行。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。