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

Achieving a Seamless and Secure Experience in Multi-Classified Cloud Environments

Originally published in 2024; substantially revised in 2026 to deepen the analysis and incorporate additional sources.

Security and usability are frequently discussed as competing objectives. In classified cloud environments, that framing is especially costly. A cumbersome workflow does not merely frustrate users; it changes their behavior. People create workarounds, duplicate data, avoid approved services, delay updates, and rely on informal knowledge to navigate controls they cannot understand.

The result may satisfy a control checklist while weakening the security and operational outcomes the controls were intended to protect.

In a multi-classification, multicloud environment, user experience is part of the security architecture. The goal is not to make every boundary invisible. It is to make safe behavior coherent, legible, and repeatable across those boundaries.

A Safety Report Is Not an Assurance Case

Revised and substantially expanded July 17, 2026, with the later policy record made explicit.

In January 2024, the U.S. government began implementing a novel requirement from Executive Order 14110: companies developing certain powerful dual-use foundation models were directed, under the Defense Production Act, to report defined development activities and provide information about training, ownership and protection of model weights, and red-team testing.

The move addressed a real information asymmetry. Frontier-model developers could observe capabilities, incidents, infrastructure, and internal test results that the government could not readily see. Voluntary disclosure alone was unlikely to produce consistent coverage, especially when safety findings might affect competitive positioning or invite scrutiny.

But the title of the original version of this post—“AI Companies to Begin Sharing Safety Test Reports”—made the policy sound more complete than it was. Receiving a report is not equivalent to understanding a system. A red-team result is not a safety certificate. A compliance submission does not establish that a model is acceptably safe for every downstream use.

Reporting is best understood as one sensor in a larger assurance system. Its value depends on the quality of the questions, comparability of the evidence, expertise of the reviewer, protections around sensitive information, and—most importantly—the government's ability to act on what it learns.

Bringing AI into Mission-Critical Systems: Unifying Mission, Systems, and Data

Originally published in 2024; substantially revised in 2026 to deepen the analysis and incorporate additional sources.

Organizations often describe AI integration as if a model were a component that could be inserted into an existing system: connect an API, provide data, expose a prediction, and declare the capability operational. That mental model is useful for demonstrations and dangerously incomplete for mission-critical environments.

Operational AI is not a model-integration problem. It is a systems-engineering problem spanning mission outcomes, software architecture, data stewardship, human judgment, security, assurance, and the mechanisms through which the system learns after deployment.

The central challenge is not getting a model to run. It is making the larger mission system trustworthy and adaptable when one of its components behaves probabilistically.

Ensuring the Effectiveness of AI-Powered Identity Systems: NIST’s Focus on Data and Testing

NIST Advocates Concentrated Effort on Data, Testing for Efficient AI-Powered Identity Systems

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintains its focus on ensuring that identity systems reliant on artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are trained and assessed accurately, a position made clear by a NIST official’s recent statement.

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