Architectural feedback: Two-Tier Epistemic Architecture for managed curiosity #9
Description
Context
I reviewed the Denario architecture and arXiv paper (2510.26887) in November 2024 and developed an architectural response addressing what I believe are fundamental assumptive flaws in the current approach.
I emailed the team directly on November 4th but received no response, so I'm sharing here for the community.
Core Observation
The current pipeline:
den.get_idea() → den.get_method() → den.get_results() → den.get_paper()Assumes the problem is well-formed at the start and optimizes for execution speed rather than epistemic soundness. This produces outputs that are internally consistent but conceptually shallow—syntactic research without semantic depth.
Proposed Alternative: Two-Tier Epistemic Architecture
Core principle: Automation follows epistemic maturity. Ideas must earn the right to be automated.
Three tiers:
- Tier 0 (Exploratory Sandbox): Randomized exploration, human-led curiosity, high entropy
- Tier 1 (Epistemic Exploration): Structured co-reasoning, contradiction mapping, hypothesis formation
- Tier 2 (Procedural Execution): Deterministic automation (where Denario's capabilities belong)
Key insight: Denario's execution layer is valuable—but it should sit downstream of an epistemic maturity gate, not replace the exploratory process.
Attached Document
The full architectural brief (6 pages) details:
- Layered architecture with transition rules
- System components (Curiosity Engine, Claim Graph, Governance Gateway)
- Governance controls (entropy budget, contradiction quotas, model rotation)
- 10 assumptive flaws observed in current "automated research" approaches
Invitation
This is offered constructively. The Denario execution infrastructure could become significantly more valuable as a Tier 2 component within a managed curiosity framework.
Happy to discuss.
Kevin Brown