Large People ModelHuman Operating Architecture

Template & Working Tool · LPM Knowledge Object

Source of Truth Map

A map of authoritative sources for metrics, policies, knowledge, decisions, records, and AI context.

Mapv1.0.0Information

Problem it solves

Leaders cannot make confident decisions when information is duplicated, stale, conflicting, or hard to trust.

Who should use it

Outcome owners, transformation leads, and cross-functional teams

Estimated time

30–45 minutes for a first working session

Three-Step Quick Start

1Identify critical information domains.
2Name the authoritative source and owner.
3Resolve duplicate or conflicting sources that affect execution or AI.

Open the public PDF

The PDF action is direct and public. All available packaged formats are also public and require no registration.

Object Overview

What this object is

Source of Truth Map is a reusable LPM knowledge object that helps organizations teams know which source to trust, who owns it, and where conflicting information must be resolved. It gives teams a structured way to make information visible, owned, and reviewable.

Why it matters

As companies scale AI, weak operating-model structures become amplified. This object helps prevent ai accelerates the spread of outdated or conflicting information. by defining ownership, flow, and handoff boundaries.

Layer Alignment

Where it fits in LPM

Primary LPM layer

Information Ecology

Defines how trusted information is created, maintained, accessed, refreshed, and used across the enterprise.

Supporting layers

No secondary layer assigned.

Why it belongs here

This object sits in Information because it turns information into a concrete artifact with owners, evidence, review cadence, and action paths.

Weakness it exposes

AI accelerates the spread of outdated or conflicting information.

Usage

How to use it

1Select the business area, workflow, platform, or AI initiative being assessed.
2Identify the accountable owner and required participants.
3Complete the working DOCX version with the team.
4Use the PDF as the reference guide.
5Capture decisions, gaps, risks, and owners.
6Convert outputs into backlog items, governance actions, or Lapemo onboarding inputs.
7Review on the recommended cadence: Quarterly or after system changes.

File Formats

Which file should you use?

PDF

Executive/reference version

Best for education, pre-read, sharing, and workshops.

DOCX

Editable working artifact

Best for facilitation, implementation, and client or internal completion.

Markdown

Website/source version

Best for publishing, documentation, and content reuse.

JSON

Structured knowledge object schema

Best for future Lapemo ingestion, scoring, validation, prompts, and workflows.

Outputs

What the organization should expect

Clearer ownership

Better decision traceability

Reduced ambiguity

Evidence-backed conversations

Better AI readiness

Better handoff into Lapemo later

Source of truth map

Conflict list

Information governance actions

Advanced specification, company-size variants, and future product notes

Company Scale

How this changes by company size

500+ employees

Use this to create baseline clarity.

Focus on named owners, simple governance, and reducing informal workarounds.

Included in this object.

5,000+ employees

Use this to standardize across functions and platforms.

Focus on cross-functional ownership, decision rights, evidence, and repeatability.

Included in this object.

10,000+ employees

Use this to create enterprise control and reviewability.

Focus on federation, risk tiers, governance bodies, AI boundaries, and auditability.

Included in this object.

Artifact Content

Source artifact

The full artifact content below is rendered from the Markdown source packaged with Source of Truth Map.

Reusable LPM Knowledge Object v1.0

Purpose

The Source-of-Truth Map identifies which system, artifact, owner, or governed record is authoritative for critical enterprise objects. It prevents teams, dashboards, AI tools, spreadsheets, meetings, and chat threads from creating competing truths.

Core principles

Principle	What it means
One thing cannot have five truths	A business object may appear in many channels, but only one source should be authoritative for the current approved state.
Separate discussion from record	Chat, meetings, email, and AI summaries may discuss work, but the durable record must live in an approved system of truth.
Every source needs an owner	A source without an accountable owner becomes stale, duplicated, misused, or overtrusted by people and AI.
Evidence needs lineage	A claim is not reliable unless the source, owner, refresh date, confidence, and downstream use are visible.
AI cannot invent truth	AI may retrieve, summarize, route, classify, or recommend, but it must reference governed sources and expose confidence and human review rules.
Systems need boundary clarity	System of record, system of engagement, system of analysis, and system of action are different jobs and should not be confused.
Staleness is risk	A source-of-truth map must define review windows, freshness rules, exception handling, and supersession logic.

Required fields

Field	Definition	Required
Truth object ID	Unique identifier for the source-of-truth object, domain, data product, document, decision record, metric, policy, or AI output	Yes
Business object	What the source governs: customer, product, employee, policy, metric, decision, initiative, control, risk, asset, or agent	Yes
Truth statement	Plain-language statement of what the organization treats as authoritative	Yes
System of record	The approved system where the official state is stored	Yes
System of engagement	Where people interact, discuss, request, or collaborate around the object	Required when different
System of analysis	Where reporting, dashboards, metrics, or insights are generated	Required when metrics exist
System of action	Where work is executed, automated, or triggered from the source	Required when workflow exists
Accountable owner	Business role accountable for accuracy, use, change control, and dispute resolution	Yes
Technical owner	Technology, platform, data, or integration owner responsible for system reliability and access	Required when system-backed
Data steward / content steward	Role responsible for definitions, quality, metadata, retention, and review hygiene	Required when material
Primary consumers	Teams, roles, workflows, dashboards, agents, vendors, or controls that depend on the source	Yes
Approved uses	What the source can safely support	Yes
Disallowed uses	What the source must not be used to decide, automate, publish, or report	Yes
Freshness window	How current the source must be to be decision-grade	Yes
Evidence standard	Proof required before the source can support a decision, governance action, AI recommendation, or external commitment	Yes
Confidence rating	High, medium, low, provisional, stale, disputed, or retired	Yes
Lineage / dependencies	Upstream sources, transformations, approvals, integrations, and downstream records that depend on this truth object	Yes
Sensitivity level	Public, internal, confidential, restricted, regulated, customer-sensitive, employee-sensitive, legal-sensitive	Yes
Access rule	Who can view, edit, approve, export, automate, or supersede the source	Yes
AI use rule	Whether AI can retrieve, summarize, classify, recommend, update, or act on the source	Yes
Human review rule	When a human owner must validate the source before it is used by people or AI	Required when material
Exception path	Where conflicts, stale records, duplicate truths, missing owners, or disputed sources are escalated	Yes
Supersession rule	How a source replaces another source, retires duplicates, or marks prior records as obsolete	Yes
Review date	Date the source must be reviewed again	Yes
Version	Artifact version, owner, last reviewed date, and change history	Yes

Truth object types

Object type	Common source systems	What it governs	Primary consumers	Failure risk
Customer / account truth	CRM, customer master, support system, data platform	Customer identity, commitments, tier, renewals, support status	Sales, success, support, finance, AI agents	Duplicate customer records, unsupported AI outreach, stale commitments
Employee / org truth	HRIS, identity platform, org chart, access system	Role, manager, team, cost center, access, employment status	People leaders, finance, IT, compliance, workforce AI	Wrong routing, access errors, shadow org structures
Work / delivery truth	Jira, Azure DevOps, ServiceNow, portfolio tool	Initiatives, backlog, dependencies, owners, status, blockers	Product, engineering, transformation, executives, agents	Hidden work, conflicting status, AI prioritizing stale work
Decision truth	Decision Log, governance workflow, board / executive records	Decision, owner, rationale, evidence, effective date, supersession	Leadership, delivery teams, governance, AI assistants	Decisions lost in meetings, conflicting interpretations
Metric truth	Metric registry, BI semantic layer, finance system, data catalog	Definition, formula, source, owner, refresh cadence, threshold	Executives, operators, analysts, AI insight tools	Competing dashboards and false confidence
Policy / control truth	GRC, policy repository, legal system, security platform	Policy, control, exception, approval, control owner, audit evidence	Risk, compliance, security, audit, AI governance	Unreviewed exceptions, outdated controls, unsupported AI decisions
Knowledge truth	Confluence, SharePoint, knowledge base, LMS	Playbooks, SOPs, architecture, onboarding, operating standards	Employees, vendors, AI search, onboarding, support	Stale guidance becoming AI training context
AI initiative truth	AI Initiative Owner Register, model registry, vendor system	Use case, owner, value, risk tier, model, data, controls, human review	AI governance, product teams, executives, legal, audit	Pilot sprawl, no accountable business owner
AI output truth	Source system plus AI output log or review queue	Generated summary, recommendation, classification, action, confidence, reviewer	Operators, customers, governance, agents, analytics	AI output treated as fact without source and review
Vendor / integration truth	Vendor inventory, CMDB, API gateway, procurement system	Vendor, system, integration, contract, data flow, owner, SLA	Procurement, IT, security, data, risk, product	Unknown dependency, unmanaged data sharing, broken integrations

Source roles

Role	Purpose	Boundary	Examples
System of record	Stores the official approved state	Owns the current truth of the object	HRIS for employee status, CRM for customer record, GRC for control exception
System of engagement	Supports human collaboration and interaction	Can discuss or request changes, but does not replace the record	Teams, Slack, email, meeting notes, forms
System of analysis	Transforms records into metrics, trends, and insights	Can analyze truth, but must link back to governed definitions and source data	BI dashboard, data warehouse, semantic layer, metric registry
System of action	Executes workflow, automation, notifications, tasks, or agentic action	Can act only inside approved boundaries and with valid source references	Workflow tool, agent platform, service desk automation, orchestration layer
System of evidence	Stores proof that a claim, decision, control, or output is valid	Can support decisions, audits, AI recommendations, and reviews	Evidence pack, source logs, audit trail, data catalog, lineage graph
System of memory	Preserves durable organizational knowledge over time	Can teach future teams and AI what was decided, why, and under what context	Decision log, knowledge base, policy repository, architecture record

500+ employee company version

Category	Guidance
Design intent	Create basic source discipline before the company outgrows founder memory, local spreadsheets, and tribal knowledge.
Core sources	CRM, HRIS, work system, finance system, knowledge base, decision log, and AI initiative register.
Biggest risk	People treat Slack, email, meetings, and spreadsheets as truth because the real record is unclear or missing.
Minimum rule	Every critical business object gets one source of record, one accountable owner, and one review cadence.
Operating pattern	Quarterly source review, simple duplicate-source cleanup, clear channel guide, and owner validation for AI summaries.
AI focus	AI may retrieve and summarize only from approved sources. Unowned or stale content should be flagged, not amplified.

5,000+ employee company version

Category	Guidance
Design intent	Standardize truth across functions so every department does not create its own private version of customers, work, metrics, policy, and decisions.
Core sources	Enterprise CRM, HRIS, finance, portfolio, service desk, GRC, data platform, knowledge base, metric registry, decision log, AI registry.
Biggest risk	Competing dashboards, duplicated systems, and function-specific truth create cross-functional coordination drag.
Minimum rule	Material dashboards, decisions, controls, and AI workflows must link to approved sources with owner, freshness, and confidence visible.
Operating pattern	Domain-level source owners, monthly exception review, quarterly source rationalization, and formal source-change governance.
AI focus	AI should classify source confidence, detect stale or duplicate sources, and route exceptions to accountable owners.

10,000+ employee company version

Category	Guidance
Design intent	Operate source-of-truth governance as enterprise infrastructure across regions, business units, regulations, platforms, and AI control planes.
Core sources	Master data, data catalog, metric registry, model registry, GRC, CMDB, API gateway, identity, finance, HRIS, CRM, portfolio, knowledge, decision and evidence systems.
Biggest risk	The enterprise runs on federated truths without visible lineage, creating audit exposure, AI hallucination risk, and slow executive decisions.
Minimum rule	Every enterprise-critical source needs lineage, sensitivity, control owner, review SLA, AI access rule, and supersession governance.
Operating pattern	Federated source owners, enterprise metadata standards, automated drift/staleness detection, and executive review of critical truth conflicts.
AI focus	AI agents must be source-bound, confidence-aware, permission-aware, and blocked from using stale, disputed, or unowned truth objects.

Confidence states

State	Definition	Use rule
High confidence	Named owner, approved system, recent refresh, documented lineage, governed access, clear AI rule	Decision-grade and automation-eligible inside approved boundaries
Medium confidence	Owner exists and source is mostly current, but lineage, definition, or downstream dependency is incomplete	Can support team-level decisions with owner review
Low confidence	Source exists but owner, freshness, quality, access, or definition is weak	Do not use for material decisions without validation
Stale	Freshness window missed or review date expired	Flag, route to owner, and block from AI-generated material conclusions
Disputed	Multiple sources disagree or teams challenge the authoritative record	Escalate through source owner, data steward, or governance forum
Retired	Source has been superseded or should no longer be used	Archive, redirect, and prevent future AI retrieval or workflow use

Workshop flow

Step	Instruction
1. Inventory critical truth objects	List the business objects that people, systems, dashboards, decisions, controls, and AI workflows depend on.
2. Separate channel from record	Identify where the object is discussed versus where the official state is stored.
3. Assign owners	Name the accountable business owner, technical owner, and steward where required.
4. Define evidence standard	Clarify what makes the source decision-grade, audit-grade, customer-grade, or AI-safe.
5. Map lineage and consumers	Connect upstream sources, downstream systems, dashboards, workflows, agents, and decisions.
6. Set AI use rules	Define whether AI can retrieve, summarize, classify, recommend, update, or act on the source.
7. Score confidence	Rate the source as high, medium, low, stale, disputed, or retired.
8. Resolve conflicts	Route duplicate, stale, disputed, or unowned sources through the exception path.
9. Publish the map	Store the map in the website resource, knowledge base, and Lapemo ingestion object.
10. Review and supersede	Update owner, status, source, lineage, and AI rules whenever systems or workflows change.

Validation rules

Condition	Rule
No owner	Flag as not decision-grade and assign an owner before use by AI or governance.
No system of record	Classify as unmanaged truth. Route to source rationalization.
Duplicate source	Mark as disputed until one record is approved or roles are clarified.
Stale review date	Downgrade confidence and notify accountable owner.
AI use with no source link	Block from material communication, decision, or automation.
Sensitive source with broad access	Escalate to access owner, security, legal, or compliance depending on data type.
Dashboard without metric definition	Mark as analysis-only, not decision-grade.
Workflow action without authority boundary	Block autonomous action until decision rights and controls are defined.
Retired source still referenced	Redirect consumers and update AI retrieval rules.

Scoring model

Dimension	Score	Question
Owner clarity	0-5	Is there a named accountable owner and backup owner?
System clarity	0-5	Is the record, engagement, analysis, action, and evidence role clear?
Evidence quality	0-5	Is the source current, defined, linkable, and supported by evidence?
Lineage visibility	0-5	Are upstream and downstream dependencies known?
Access and sensitivity control	0-5	Are permissions, retention, and sensitivity rules appropriate?
AI readiness	0-5	Can AI safely retrieve, summarize, recommend, or act with source links and human review?

AI prompts

Prompt	Instruction
Classify truth object	Given this source description, classify the business object, source role, owner type, sensitivity, and AI use boundary.
Detect duplicate truth	Compare these sources and identify whether they represent duplicate, conflicting, complementary, or superseded records.
Score source confidence	Score owner clarity, system clarity, evidence quality, lineage, access control, and AI readiness from 0 to 5. Explain each gap.
Generate exception	Draft an exception record for a stale, disputed, unowned, or unsafe source with recommended owner and escalation path.
Create website version	Render this source-of-truth map as a website artifact with executive summary, worksheet table, and workshop instructions.
Create Lapemo ingestion object	Convert the completed map into JSON with IDs, owners, systems, source roles, confidence, evidence links, and AI rules.

Example register rows

ID	Business object	Source	Role	Owner	Truth governed	Freshness	AI rule	Confidence
SOT-001	Customer account	Salesforce	CRM	VP Sales Ops	Customer master, account owner, tier, renewal status	Weekly	AI can summarize account context. Human approves customer-facing commitments.	High
SOT-002	Enterprise decision	Decision Log	Governance / decision memory	COO or delegated decision owner	Decision, rationale, evidence, effective date, supersession	At decision time and quarterly review	AI can retrieve and summarize with source link. Cannot supersede decision.	High
SOT-003	AI use case	AI Initiative Owner Register	AI control record	Business initiative owner	Use case, value, risk tier, data, controls, human review	Monthly	AI can classify status. Owner approves risk or value changes.	Medium
SOT-004	Metric definition	Metric Registry	Semantic / analytic truth	Data product owner	Metric formula, source data, threshold, dashboard use	Monthly or when formula changes	AI insights require metric owner, freshness, and confidence display.	Medium
SOT-005	Policy exception	GRC Platform	Control and audit truth	Risk control owner	Exception, approval, control impact, expiration, evidence	At approval and expiration	AI can summarize status. Human control owner approves disposition.	High

Website positioning

Use this artifact as a downloadable resource and as a guided LPM skill. A company can complete the worksheet manually, upload it during Lapemo onboarding, or convert it into a governed source object that can be scored, reviewed, superseded, and mapped to systems and AI workflows.

Future Lapemo Use

The JSON schema turns source of truth map into software.

Lapemo can use this knowledge object as a guided workflow, scoring model, evidence record, governance input, and operating intelligence object. The schema is public for inspection and evaluation; production ingestion and governed execution remain separate product capabilities.