This page explains who I am inviting to review the work, why your perspective matters, and how to conduct a review efficiently in 2–5 hours.
The goal is not consensus or endorsement. The goal is clear, substantive critique.
1. Who I Am Reaching Out To (Intentionally Small)
I am deliberately inviting a small, diverse group of reviewers rather than a broad mailing list. Each reviewer is chosen because they bring a distinct failure-detection lens.
1.1 Systems & Architecture Reviewers
People with experience in:
- distributed systems
- object-oriented modeling
- edge computing / IoT
- safety- or mission-critical systems
Why you:
You can see architectural brittleness, hidden coupling, missing abstractions, and lifecycle problems early.
1.2 AI / ML Practitioners (Practical, Not Hype-Oriented)
People who have:
- built real ML systems,
- wrestled with data drift, false positives, and uncertainty,
- experienced the gap between research and deployment.
Why you:
You can tell whether the Event / Knowledge / Agent separation is realistic, enforceable, and implementable.
1.3 Edge, IoT, and Embedded Practitioners
People with experience in:
- constrained hardware,
- offline operation,
- power, bandwidth, and failure modes.
Why you:
You can judge whether the MVP profile is technically feasible without becoming brittle or expensive.
1.4 Governance, Safety, and Ethics Reviewers
People who work on:
- AI governance
- standards
- safety frameworks
- accountability mechanisms
Why you:
You can evaluate whether Policy, World scoping, and Logs are actually enforceable, not just aspirational.
1.5 Standards-Oriented Thinkers
People familiar with:
- formal models
- profiles vs base specifications
- conformance and interoperability
Why you:
You can assess whether OAII is structured in a way that could plausibly evolve into a standard.
2. What I Am Not Asking For
To be explicit, I am not asking you to:
- build anything
- review code
- endorse the work
- agree with the premises
- solve open research problems
I am asking you to stress the model, not rescue it.
3. Recommended Review Order (2–5 Hours)
You do not need to read everything in detail.
3.1 Core Pass (≈90 minutes)
- OAII Base Model — Index
→ Does the object set make sense? - OAII Base Model — World, Event, Policy
→ Are boundaries explicit and enforceable? - Open SGI MVP — Use Case
→ Is the problem statement realistic and bounded?
3.2 MVP Grounding Pass (≈60–90 minutes)
- MVP Profile Specification
→ Are the constraints sufficient and reasonable? - HomeWorldProfile & EdgeHomeDeviceProfile
→ Would this survive real-world deployment?
3.3 Optional Deep Dives (as interest allows)
- Contextual Axes explainer post
- Agent and Interface definitions
- Logging and accountability model
4. What Feedback Is Most Valuable
Written comments are ideal, but format is flexible.
The most helpful feedback includes:
- Where the model is underspecified
- Where it over-constrains unnecessarily
- Hidden assumptions you detect
- Failure modes I may be underestimating
- Places where implementation would quietly diverge from intent
Pointing out why something would fail is more valuable than suggesting fixes.
5. What to Ignore (If You Choose)
You can safely ignore:
- naming choices
- formatting
- speculative future extensions
Focus on structure, boundaries, and enforceability.
6. How to Submit Feedback
Any of the following are welcome:
- inline comments on documents
- a short memo (1–3 pages)
- an email with numbered observations
If helpful, you may also include:
- diagrams
- counterexamples
- references to comparable systems or standards
There is no required template.
7. How Feedback Will Be Used
Feedback will be:
- reviewed carefully
- incorporated transparently where appropriate
- acknowledged (unless you prefer anonymity)
Disagreements will not be smoothed over. They will be documented.
8. Why This Review Matters
Autonomous systems are increasingly deployed in private, high-stakes contexts.
If we cannot define architectures that:
- make meaning explicit,
- enforce governance structurally,
- and remain inspectable over time,
then regulation and trust will fail together.
Your review helps determine whether OAII meaningfully advances that goal.
Thank you for considering the time and care required for a serious review.
Open Autonomous Intelligence Initiative 