1ce4004807
This commit adds the read path (Cortex) to complement the write path (Spine): ## Crates - stemedb-api: HTTP API with axum + utoipa OpenAPI - /v1/assert, /v1/query, /v1/epoch, /v1/skeptic, /v1/trace, /v1/audit - Metered endpoints with quota enforcement - Ed25519 signature verification - stemedb-lens: Truth resolution lenses - RecencyLens, ConsensusLens, ConfidenceLens - VoteAwareConsensusLens (Ballot Box pattern) - TrustAwareAuthorityLens (The Hive pattern) - SkepticLens (conflict analysis) - EpochAwareLens (paradigm-safe queries) - stemedb-query: Query engine with materialized views ## Storage Extensions - VoteStore: Vote aggregation with cached counts - TrustRankStore: Agent reputation with decay - AuditStore: Query audit trail - IndexStore: SP/P/S index structures - SupersessionStore: Epoch supersession chains ## SDKs - sdk/go/steme: Go HTTP client with Ed25519 signing - sdk/go/adk: ADK-Go tools for AI agents ## Documentation - Updated CLAUDE.md, architecture.md, roadmap.md - New ai-lookup entries for all services - Use case docs for consumer health intelligence - Arena roadmap for simulation advancement Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| agile-agent-team.md | ||
| consumer-health-intelligence.md | ||
| financial-due-diligence.md | ||
| glp1-living-review.md | ||
| README.md | ||
Episteme Use Cases
Real-world scenarios that demonstrate why Episteme exists and what it enables that traditional databases cannot.
The Postgres Test
Every use case must answer: "Could I build this with Postgres + a clever schema?"
If yes → It's not a compelling use case. If no → Identify which Episteme pillar makes it impossible.
The Four Pillars
| Pillar | What It Enables | Postgres Gap |
|---|---|---|
| First-Class Contradiction | DB holds conflicting facts without forcing resolution | Must pick one value or version-table chaos |
| Invalidation Cascades | Retracted evidence flags all downstream decisions | Recursive CTEs don't scale, app logic drifts |
| Multi-Signature Consensus | Weighted trust via cryptographic co-signatures | Join tables have no cryptographic proof |
| Semantic Decay | Old data fades from hot path but remains auditable | Manual WHERE clauses, inconsistent decay rates |
Use Case Tiers
Tier 1: Production-Ready
| Use Case | Pillars | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer Health Intelligence | All Four | Draft |
| Financial Due Diligence | All Four | Draft |
| Agile AI Agent Team | All Four | Draft |
| Life Sciences Evidence Chains | All Four | Planned |
Tier 2: Hello World
| Use Case | Pillars | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Competing News Sources | Contradiction, Decay | Planned |
Tier 3: Dropped (Failed Postgres Test)
| Use Case | Why Dropped |
|---|---|
| Git + CI already does this. Not a database problem. |
Contributing Use Cases
When adding a use case:
- Apply the Postgres Test rigorously
- Lead with the catastrophe (what goes wrong without Episteme)
- Show failing SQL for each feature
- Map to specific pillars
- Include a 5-minute local demo variant
- Be honest about what Postgres CAN do
Template: See financial-due-diligence.md for structure.