# Domain Knowledge Program — the production line for every domain **The architecture is stable. From here the value comes from DOMAIN MODELLING, not more software.** The real bottleneck is no longer architecture or controls or even „knowledge" — it is **domain modelling**. Phase B is therefore organised as ONE program with sub-programs per domain, each run through the SAME production line. No new runtime framework (ADR-008/009, Freeze v1.0). ## The customer enters by INDUSTRY, not by regulation A customer never says „explain ISO 9001". They say „I build packaging machines" / „I'm an automotive supplier" / „I build parking systems". So the pipeline starts at the industry: ``` Industry → Domain Model → Requirement Sources → Requirements → Capabilities → … → Reality / Verification ``` ## The 7-stage checklist (identical for EVERY domain) | # | Stage | Owner | |---|---|---| | 1 | **Domain Model** (industry → what world is this?) | Reasoning / curation | | 2 | **Requirement Sources** (which regulations/standards/specs apply) | Legal Knowledge | | 3 | **Capability Registry** (capabilities the sources require) | Compliance Execution | | 4 | **Transition Patterns** (source-state → domain delta) | Reasoning | | 5 | **Playbooks** (how to implement each capability) | Reasoning | | 6 | **Reference Scenarios** (canonical regression + expected outcomes) | Reasoning | | 7 | **Completeness** (auditable coverage per domain) | Reasoning / curation | This is the scaling mechanism: every new domain reuses the same production line; the existing engines (Scope, Gap, Capability Delta, Optimization, Playbooks, Reference, Completeness) extend automatically. ## A domain knows its typical sources → pre-onboarding HYPOTHESIS (the ETO insight) Each domain definition lists `typical_requirement_sources` and `typical_certifications`. So before onboarding, BreakPilot can say „this process world is *probably* present" — as a **hypothesis, not a truth**. We don't want to know whether an automotive supplier has ISO 9001 (everyone does); we want to know **which company capabilities are therefore probably already present** (feeds Company 2A as `inferred`, never `confirmed`). ## Per-domain KPI — reproducible, not marketing Progress per domain is **derived from the Regulatory Completeness Engine + the actual corpus** (computed-not-stored): identified requirement sources · modelled capabilities · transition patterns · playbooks · passed reference scenarios · consciously declared corpus gaps. Rendered as a bar (`Industrial ███████░░░ 70 %`). These are reproducible quality metrics — no curated numbers. ## Domain Knowledge Program v1 — backlog (by current customer value) | Rank | Domain | File | Typical sources | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | **Industrial Automation** | `industrial_automation.yaml` | CRA · MaschinenVO · EMV · RED · Data Act · IEC 62443 · NIS2 | | 2 | Environmental | `environmental.yaml` | Wasser · Chemikalien · Luft · Energie · Abfall · Produktverantwortung | | 3 | Automotive | `automotive.yaml` | IATF · TISAX · UNECE R155/R156 · ASPICE · OEM-Lastenhefte | | 4 | Medical | `medical.yaml` | MDR · IEC 62304 · ISO 14971 | | 5 | Energy | `energy.yaml` | je nach Zielmarkt | The work shifts decisively from software development to knowledge production; the competitive advantage now comes from the quality and breadth of the modelled domains. ## The unit of knowledge is the TRANSITION, not the law (Operational Knowledge) Customers never ask „what's in the CRA?". They ask **„I have ISO 9001 — what do I still need for the CRA?"**. The sellable unit is therefore the **transition** (`from → to`), not a single law and not a single capability. `knowledge/programs/transitions.yaml` is the **Operational Knowledge backlog**: the ~20–30 transitions that are actually demanded (out of the ~N·(N−1) theoretically possible), with a priority. Nobody buys „EMV domain"; they buy „ISO 9001 → CRA". ## Three knowledge layers ``` Regulatory Knowledge (laws · standards · guidelines) ↓ Operational Knowledge (transition patterns · playbooks · capability deltas) ← biggest differentiator ↓ Verification Knowledge (source code · SBOM · docs · architecture · processes) ← Vision V2 / Req. Verification ``` The middle layer is where we answer not just *what* is required, but *how a company gets there from its current maturity*. That is the strongest moat. ## Transition Coverage — a second, stronger KPI Besides per-domain maturity, the reference suite reports **Transition Coverage**: per top-transition a status DERIVED from the transition-pattern corpus (`reviewed/validated/proven → ✅`, `draft → 🟡`, `none → ⚪`). „ISO 9001 → MaschinenVO ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ but ⚪" is a far stronger product indicator than „EMV 30 %". ## A domain is a TRANSITION PROGRAM with two parallel tracks - **Track A — breadth:** model the domain's remaining requirement sources (EMV, RED, IEC 62443, NIS2 …) so the corpus grows. (Stage 2–3, @Legal-KG / @Execution.) - **Track B — product:** for each newly modelled source, immediately produce the top transition patterns + playbooks + reference scenarios → knowledge customers buy and consultants use. (Stage 4–6, @Reasoning.) Track B turns breadth into product value continuously.