b3e8a9a058
Major additions: - Community Next.js app (port 18187) for browsing claims with API docs - stemedb-chaos crate: Fault injection, chaos testing, CRDT properties - Latent ingestion system: Reddit/FDA ingesters with ADK-Go agents - Disputed claims handling: Manual review workflows and validation - Aphoria security scanner: New extractors (SQL injection, command injection, weak crypto, TLS version), policy-based ignores, UAT reports - Docker infrastructure: Dockerfile, docker-compose.yml for full stack - VulnBank demo: Intentionally vulnerable multi-language test corpus SDK & API enhancements: - Source registry handlers for tracking data provenance - Metrics endpoint - Skeptic filtering improvements Code quality: - Split 14 large files (>500 lines) into focused modules - All files now under 500-line limit per project guidelines Documentation: - Chaos testing guide, circuit breakers, observability docs - Phase 7 UAT documentation updates - Martin Kleppmann technical writer agent 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.