Skip to content

INDEPENDENT RESEARCH / PRACTICE NOTES

Ideas in motion, not ideas behind glass.

This is my working notebook on AI engineering, strategy, knowledge infrastructure, organizational transformation, and the human systems that determine whether innovation becomes real capability.

The notes range from emerging research questions to practical operating models. Some will become papers, tools, talks, or products. Others are here because thinking improves when it is made visible.

Evidence before theater Systems over slogans Useful, accountable AI

Subscribe via RSS Follow Field Notes in any feed reader

Latest writing

A follower is not an audience

Earlier today I posted something deliberately blunt on LinkedIn. I said the feed increasingly felt less like a professional network and more like Facebook: crowded with clickbait, personal-brand theater, and content optimized to provoke a reaction rather than help someone find work, exchange expertise, or make a useful professional connection.

Three hours later, the post showed 42 impressions. My profile has roughly 16,500 followers. Two people had reacted. Above the post, LinkedIn displayed an invitation to Boost it.

I took a screenshot because the juxtaposition was almost too perfect. A platform had offered me a number suggesting extraordinarily weak organic distribution and, in the same interface, offered to sell me more visibility. Then I wrote a second post criticizing that result. That complaint reached about 250 impressions in its first hour—roughly six times the number shown on the original post.

The easiest conclusion is also the most emotionally satisfying: LinkedIn suppressed my post so it could charge me to reach the audience I had already built.

The screenshot does not prove that. It reveals something more defensible, and in some ways more consequential: a follower on a ranked platform is not an addressable audience. It is a relationship that the platform may or may not activate, according to objectives the user cannot see.

That distinction matters on any social network. It matters more on a platform that mediates employment, expertise, reputation, recruiting, sales, and access to professional opportunity.

The first deliverable from generative coding should be understanding

The most dangerous sentence in a modernization program may be, “We know what this system does.”

Usually, someone knows what the system is supposed to do. Operators know the screens and workarounds. A few engineers know where the brittle integrations live. Program managers know the contracts and milestones. Cybersecurity teams know some of the exposed surfaces. The source code knows all of it at once—but in a form no single person can hold in mind.

That is why the emerging market for generative coding matters to government for a reason deeper than writing software faster. Its first serious public-sector use may be helping an organization recover a working model of the technology estate it already owns.

The CMMC suspension is an organizational knowledge test

Cybersecurity certification was never going to be just another audit for the companies that build and support U.S. defense systems. Preparing for it changed budgets, architectures, hiring plans, subcontractor relationships, and the everyday work connecting cyber teams with engineers, contracts staff, and program leaders.

Then, on July 13, 2026, the Department of Defense (DoD) suspended the planned transition to Phase II of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program. The Department also halted later implementation milestones and opened a 60-day review of the program.

The announcement brought meaningful relief from the coming expansion of third-party assessments. It did not, however, abolish CMMC or erase the contractual duty to protect defense information. Phase I continues, and the underlying safeguarding and reporting requirements remain in force.

That leaves defense organizations with a harder question than whether to keep preparing for an assessment: Which parts of the CMMC effort were merely certification overhead, and which parts became necessary organizational capability?

The distinction matters because a compliance program leaves behind more than policies and evidence. It also changes who talks to whom, how work moves between teams, where decisions are recorded, and whether an organization can accurately explain the security of its systems. Those capabilities are slow to build and surprisingly easy to lose.

From signals to strategic options

Organizations rarely suffer from a shortage of information. They face a conversion problem.

Research, technical releases, policy changes, customer behavior, competitive moves, hiring patterns, and weak signals from adjacent markets arrive continuously. Most are read once, summarized once, and then lost. Even when information is saved, the connection between what changed, what it might mean, which option it informed, and what happened next is rarely preserved.

Agentic AI creates an opportunity to improve that conversion—not by automating strategy, but by helping people build a more continuous and disciplined intelligence practice.

Model the builders, not only the models

We usually evaluate high-stakes AI by inspecting the artifact: the model, benchmark, system card, test report, or approval package. But before deployment, accountability is created—or eroded—by a population of builders acting through partial information, uneven authority, deadlines, review queues, and AI-mediated tools.

That makes builder-side AI development a natural candidate for agent-based modeling.

READER-NEUTRAL SUBSCRIPTION

Follow Field Notes via RSS.

Copy this address into the RSS reader you already use. New notes will appear there automatically—no account, email address, or tracking required.

Open the feed