# AEDA package verification

## Assessment

The drafted sections are largely faithful to the source syntheses. Spot-checking every load-bearing quantitative metric and named citation against LR01-LR11 found no fabricated numbers, systems, or sources: the headline figures (ontology grounding 37%-to-98% accuracy and 63%-to-1.7% hallucination from Ali/Taha/Morsey; rho=0.88 maturity correlation; GraphRAG latency/accuracy tiers and 90.71% token reduction; 10x/32.4%/92.4% neural-symbolic dual-indexing; 15.95x xDEVS speedup; 48%/35% governance-board results; portfolio 16.8%/1.34 Sharpe/8.2%; 35% KG efficiency and >90% root-cause) all trace correctly to their cited syntheses. No em dashes were found in any drafted section (the prose consistently uses commas, semicolons, and parenthetical clauses, e.g. the decision section's "GraphRAG retrieval, agent swarms, the enterprise digital twin, simulation, and optimization, resolves into"). The one substantive problem is a structural naming inconsistency: the architecture is branded "ten-layer" throughout, but the canonical layer list enumerated in the header, the refarch section, the roadmap, and the codex section contains 11-12 named layers (Data Sources, Ontology Discovery, Ontology Governance, Enterprise Ontology, Knowledge Graph, GraphRAG, Agent Swarms, Enterprise Digital Twin, Simulation, Optimization, Decision Layer, Executive Support). This count mismatch should be reconciled before the package is treated as canonical. Coverage is otherwise complete across all layers, with each layer specified by purpose, inputs, outputs, technologies, and grounding evidence. Verdict: substantively clean on fabrication and em dashes; one numbering inconsistency and a few minor traceability/ordering items to resolve.

## Issues

- INCONSISTENCY (refarch, codex, roadmap, origin, definitions, space): The package is named the 'ten-layer reference architecture' but the canonical layer enumeration lists 11-12 named elements (Data Sources, Ontology Discovery, Ontology Governance, Enterprise Ontology, Knowledge Graph, GraphRAG, Agent Swarms, Enterprise Digital Twin, Simulation, Optimization, Decision Layer, Executive Support). Even collapsing Decision Layer + Executive Support yields 11, and counting Data Sources yields 12. Either rename to match the true count or explicitly state which elements are 'layers' versus substrate/tier so 'ten' is defensible.
- INCONSISTENCY (codex): The Implementation Priorities list and the 'ten-layer stack, in order' restatement in the codex section omit the 'Data Sources' layer at the front in the priorities list (priorities start at Ontology design) while the inline stack restatement includes Data Sources, and also appends both 'Decision Layer' and 'Executive Support' as separate trailing items. This compounds the ten-versus-twelve ambiguity within a single section that declares itself the 'authoritative source of record.' Reconcile the canonical ordering in one place and reference it.
- INCONSISTENCY (origin): The origin section narrates a 'seven-phase' discovery arc, but the package elsewhere describes 11 AEDA syntheses (LR01-LR11) and a ten/twelve-layer stack. The seven-phase framing maps reviews to phases in a way that does not obviously align with the 11 reviews or the layer count; verify the phase-to-review mapping is internally consistent and that no review is silently dropped (the section is truncated at phase seven, so confirm phases for Optimization/Decision/Executive Support and the discovery/governance reviews are accounted for).
- TRACEABILITY (twin): The Enterprise Digital Twin section states EDTs capture 'the decision-makers themselves' and lists representable entities (Organizations, Programs, Capabilities, Budgets, Schedules, Resources, Risks, Dependencies). LR05 supports modeling organizational structures, processes, and decision-makers, but the specific enumerated DoD entity set (Budgets, Schedules as first-class) is an AEDA design mapping, not a cited LR05 claim. Acceptable as design, but confirm it is framed as architecture rather than implying it is an evidenced result.
- TRACEABILITY (dm2_owl): The DM2-to-OWL named object properties (performs, supports, realizes, consumes, produces, exchanges) and the specific BFO alignment (Performer/Resource as independent continuants, Activity as occurrent/process, Capability as realizable disposition, InformationExchange as information artifact) are design constructs not drawn from any synthesis. This is appropriate for a mapping-strategy section, but it should be explicitly labeled as proposed AEDA design so it is not mistaken for evidence-grounded DM2 canon; the syntheses do not validate this particular property set.
- MINOR (refarch Layer 2): Lists 'risk-tiered governance with named accountability [LR09]' as a candidate technology for the Ontology Governance layer. LR09's risk-tiered governance is framed for decision flows (eligibility, law-enforcement, biometric, defense targeting), not ontology-candidate promotion. The borrowing is reasonable but slightly stretches LR09's scope; confirm the cross-application is intended.
- MINOR (definitions): The definitions section notes representative measured results 'where they substantiate the concept, not as guarantees of any specific deployment' which is good hygiene, but the Enterprise Ontology definition states ontology grounding 'is the trust-and-accuracy enforcement mechanism for every layer above it' as a flat assertion. This is AEDA's thesis claim extrapolated from a single clinical-QA result (LR02); ensure it is presented as architectural rationale rather than empirically generalized fact.