As AI systems become increasingly capable of autonomous action, determining whether an agent is technically capable of performing an action is insufficient: the system must also determine whether the action is authorised in its context. This paper introduces the Authority Resolution Framework (ARF), a five-domain ontology for representing and resolving authority across organisational roles and informal influence, business concepts, codified processes, machine-readable permissions and executable systems, and external real-world context. ARF defines the Authority Relation (AR) as a cross-domain primitive binding an actor, action, object, bounded context, justification chain, and a calibration measure termed the DNA-Coefficient, which captures divergence between documented authority structures and authority as practiced. The framework provides a machine-interpretable representation of authority provenance and scope, with JSON-LD representations and knowledge-graph query patterns for authority resolution. ARF is designed to support AI agents in determining the provenance, scope and contextual validity of authority before executing consequential actions. The framework positions authority resolution as a knowledge-representation and reasoning problem at the intersection of ontology engineering, semantic AI, agentic AI and AI governance.
AI systems whose outputs inform real decisions, and increasingly consequential ones, require something that current documentation practice does not provide: a structured, inspectable representation of the knowledge they need to ground, contextualize, and reason about those decisions, ideally reviewed and signed off by a domain expert. Established documentation artefacts already capture important aspects of an AI system. Model cards describe how a system behaves, data cards describe what it was trained on, and system cards describe the risks of a deployed system. None of them addresses the layer between inputs and outputs, more precisely, the concepts a system holds, the relationships it models, and the patterns of reasoning it applies. For pattern-recognition tasks this gap is tolerable. For agentic AI, where systems act on their conclusions, it is the step that most often separates a promising proof of concept from an operational solution an organisation can rely on. This paper introduces the Knowledge Card, a structured artefact that captures validated knowledge about a single bounded concept in a form that experts can review, organisations can audit, and AI systems can reason over. For one concept, such as a specific failure mode, a compliance obligation, or a process decision, a Knowledge Card records the entities and relationships involved, the reasoning that connects them, the conditions under which that reasoning no longer holds, and the provenance of every claim, all grounded in a formal domain ontology and signed off by a domain expert. Initial prototype cards have been built in the energy and pharmaceutical domains. The schema is released as a public draft for community engagement.
AI tools are being deployed over MBSE models today, and those models were not designed for this kind of consumption. The problem is not simply that tools hallucinate: well-prompted frontier models produce competent, useful output over a conformant SysML model, but the reasoning they produce is drawn from training rather than retrieved from the model itself, and different tools over the same model produce different results with nothing in the record to adjudicate between them. The model, in other words, is functioning as a prompt rather than as a knowledge base. Attaching better tools to the same model does not resolve this. The model and the methodology that governs its construction need to be designed together for AI participation, treating the model as a machine-queryable knowledge substrate rather than a structured artefact for human navigation, and that co-design has not yet happened in any systematic way. This paper works through a concrete workflow scenario to show what that gap looks like in practice, proposes three principles that jointly characterise what model and methodology must achieve together, and closes with a call to the community to begin this work before the architectural decisions about AI integration settle without the methodological foundation they require.