Planning a degree from official university sources requires solving two problems in order. The institution's curriculum must first be reconstructed from catalogs, departmental pages, JSON endpoints, and PDFs that share no schema, and only then can a student-specific path be optimized under prerequisite logic and overlapping requirement constraints. Coupling the two lets each failure mode hide the other, because a planner that drives its own crawling never learns facts its current plan does not need. We present KnowPlan, which enforces an extraction-first boundary and measures the interface between the stages rather than assuming it. CatalogBrowse explores with no access to any user profile. It scores legal actions by lower-confidence expected marginal gain over a finite set of atomic catalog obligations per unit of source access, parses deterministically through platform adapters with a span-constrained clause-to-AST model fallback, and terminates on a closure certificate over index, schema, provenance, and reference completeness instead of a reward threshold. Its output contract is three provenance-linked JSON documents. DegreeMap consumes only those documents. It compiles them into a typed requirement hypergraph and optimizes lexicographically with CP-SAT over hard feasibility, completion horizon, load and risk, personalized utility, and option value, so that each stage optimizes inside the previous stage's proven optimum and stays certifiable within the solver budget. Across a 100-university broad track and a six-school dense track, CatalogBrowse reaches 96.2% inventory recall and 88.7% masked-source recovery at 47% less source access than an exhaustive crawler, DegreeMap holds 100.0% hard feasibility while improving personalized utility by +0.066 over the strongest baseline, and the full pipeline certifies 99.5% of requests with a utility gap to the privileged gold graph of 0.015.
AGENTONOMICS is a framework that treats AI agents as economic entities that can be designed, managed, and governed through an integrated management architecture. Dr. AGENTONOMICS is its first application: a lecture agent developed in the context of the TUM course on AI agents in business administration. Conceived during the winter semester 2025/26 and first introduced to students in the summer semester 2026, it serves as a didactic experiment in which the agent is both the object that students study and the medium through which they learn and apply the framework. The current prototype is a web-based, retrieval-grounded tutor that explains AGENTONOMICS concepts and supports student questions. This report argues that the same system can grow beyond tutoring into three additional cumulative roles: an avatar lecturer that delivers multimodal instruction, a design consultant that guides students through the AGENTONOMICS Design & Management Reference Framework (ADMRF), and a meta-agent that helps construct the agents students have specified. These roles are cumulative because they share the same interface, intelligence layer, tools, knowledge base, and ecosystem connection, while an orchestrator selects the role-specific algorithm required for each task. We present the architecture of the prototype, outline its development roadmap, and discuss its implications for a polycentric AI economy. This report is intended to invite further discussion on how agents can teach, apply, and eventually reproduce the frameworks by which they are designed.
AI-native biotechnology companies are often designed by copying human biotech org charts into agent roles. We argue for a different abstraction: a Company World Model, defined as a persistent asset-to-value state representation with transition models, explicit value functions, planning, and updating across scientific, regulatory, BD, commercial, financial, and execution constraints. We introduce a dry-lab benchmark for testing whether AI-agent organizations should mimic departments or operate around such a world model. The benchmark contains 45 retrospective public-information decision cases with strict time cutoffs, hidden outcomes, common schemas, automatic scoring, and blinded pairwise judging. We compare human-org-mimic, stronger human-org-mimic-plus, AI-native asset-centric, and AI-native value-conversion architectures. The value-conversion architecture is a prompt-level approximation of a Company World Model: a Live Asset Value Record updated by Deal, Approval, Revenue, and Investment Arbiter loops. Under a success function defined by external BD, regulatory approval and launch, and revenue discipline, it achieved the highest automatic value-conversion score and was strongly preferred over the original baselines by value-specific blinded judges. Stress tests narrowed the claim: a stronger human baseline remained competitive, and a neutral judge did not show robust value-conversion dominance. Codex-only mechanistic ablations suggest that Revenue Room, Deal Room, and Approval Room carry useful work under the target objective. The central finding is objective-sensitive: departments may remain useful governance views, but the core AI-native operating primitive should be a shared, predictive asset-to-value state rather than a static human org chart. The study is dry-lab only and does not establish real-world drug success, clinical benefit, or revenue prediction accuracy.
As generative AI is increasingly applied to automate multi-step and high-stake workflows, human judgment and involvement remain essential for ensuring the quality of AI-generated outputs. In practice, while it is desirable for human experts to provide oversight on AI regularly, often by reviewing intermediate outputs, giving feedback, making corrections, and steering subsequent steps, such oversight is constrained by the time and resources that humans can afford. This creates a tension between the need for human oversight and AI's efficiency in delivering more output with less intervention. An important but underexplored question, then, is how to optimally engage humans in human-AI coworking. This work was originally motivated by our empirical observation that in long AI workflows, human oversight often improves user satisfaction while reducing unnecessary rework and token consumption. From there, we formulate the problem of where to place oversight stages in human-AI coworking. Under reasonable assumptions, we then develop the nonuniformity principle, which states that the optimal schedule places oversight stages with non-decreasing gaps along the workflow. We empirically validate this principle in two common AI agent workflows: writing literature reviews and constructing websites.
Recursive self-design refers to AI-assisted modification of the mechanisms by which an AI system is built, evaluated, and improved. This paper treats MetaAI not as a mature paradigm, but as a working term for a human-seeded, AI-expanded development pattern in which the design space itself becomes a target of modification. We propose an operational evidence framework with four criteria: inspectable target system, meta-level modifier, feedback-directed selection, and recursive continuation. We then map public systems, including Darwin Goedel Machine (DGM), STOP, Goedel Agent, and ShinkaEvolve, against these criteria. DGM provides the most direct currently reported evidence: its published results show improvement from 20% to 50% on SWE-bench Verified and from 14.2% to 30.7% on full Polyglot after 80 iterations, with ablations suggesting that both open-ended exploration and self-improvement contribute. Finally, we provide MetaAI-Mini, a reproducible HumanEval-based protocol and codebase. Because no completed model run is included in this build, MetaAI-Mini is reported as a protocol rather than as an experimental result.