Jarvisby TheSEO
EN
Language · same pageNLNederlands/jarvis/kennis/bronherkomst/ENEnglish (UK)/en/jarvis/knowledge/source-provenance/ESEspañolnot translated yetWe do not remember your choice and never redirect you automatically.
ARCH · source provenanceknowledge architecture · 28 July 2026

“Jarvis knows this” is not enough.

A memory worth having can explain where a claim came from, who it applies to and who approved it.

Next: human approval →The logging protocolsix fields per knowledge object: source, scope, version, validity, status, approval
FIG.B01: From a loose sentence to a knowledge objectARCH · source provenance

The same sentence, once bare and once with everything you need to know about it

The same sentence twice. At the top the way it usually gets stored: clearly phrased, and immediately good for four questions nobody can answer. Below it the same sentence with the six fields that belong to it at a minimum. The fields carry their own description instead of a customer value, because a customer value here would be invented.

~/jarvis/knowledge/source-provenance · knowledge.object[ok] schema
a loose sentencesounds clear
Quotes are valid for thirty days.does this hold for every service?since when?is it in the terms, a price list or a note?who is allowed to change it?
the same sentence as a knowledge objectsix fields
sourcefile, system, owner and a reference you can find
scopeorganisation, team, role, customer or process
versioncontent hash, reason for the change and previous version
validityeffective date, expiry date and review moment
statusproposal, in review, active, conflicting or superseded
approvalauthorised actor, timestamp and the exact version
and when they argueif the CRM, the price list and the contract name different amounts, the right answer is a review task with three sources and not a confident number
# the sentence and the four questions are in the first paragraph below, the six fields in the list under it; the fields hold their own description and no real customer value

From text to knowledge object

A loose sentence such as “quotes are valid for thirty days” sounds clear, but it raises questions immediately. Does this hold for every service? Since when? Is it in the terms, a price list or somebody's meeting note? Who is allowed to change it? A memory you can rely on keeps that metadata together with the text.

The minimum fields

  • source: file, system, owner and a reference you can find;
  • scope: organisation, team, role, customer or process;
  • version: content hash, reason for the change and previous version;
  • validity: effective date, expiry date and review moment;
  • status: proposal, in review, active, conflicting or superseded;
  • approval: authorised actor, timestamp and the exact version.

Conflicts are product data

When the CRM, the price list and the contract name different amounts, Jarvis should not average that conflict away. The right output is a review task with three sources, not a confident answer. Conflict status and resolution become part of the audit trail.

Retrieval is authorisation too

Relevance on its own is not enough. A source can fit perfectly in meaning and still not be allowed for that agent, that person or that task. So the server filters first on tenant, role, classification and purpose, and only then ranks on relevance.

Automatic maintenance

A scheduled Codex session can spot expired sources, check links and propose fixes for inconsistencies. It may not replace pricing policy, contract text or customer knowledge on its own. The review task is the automatic result; publication stays human.

Section · Next stepreachable 24/7
Book a call ↗