{ "object_name": "Source-of-Truth Map", "object_slug": "source-of-truth-map", "version": "1.0", "last_reviewed": "2026-06-24", "owner": "LPM / Lapemo", "object_type": "LPM Knowledge Object", "primary_layers": [ "Information Ecology", "Platform Structure", "Governance Architecture", "AI Amplification" ], "connected_layers": [ "Ownership Map", "Decision Architecture", "Communication Architecture", "Identity & Incentives" ], "purpose": "Identify the authoritative source, owner, evidence, lineage, access rule, and AI use boundary for critical enterprise truth objects.", "intended_audience": [ "Executives", "Transformation leaders", "Data leaders", "Technology leaders", "AI governance leaders", "Risk and compliance leaders", "Product and operations leaders" ], "company_versions": { "500_plus": { "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." }, "5000_plus": { "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." }, "10000_plus": { "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." } }, "required_fields": [ { "name": "Truth object ID", "definition": "Unique identifier for the source-of-truth object, domain, data product, document, decision record, metric, policy, or AI output", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Business object", "definition": "What the source governs: customer, product, employee, policy, metric, decision, initiative, control, risk, asset, or agent", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Truth statement", "definition": "Plain-language statement of what the organization treats as authoritative", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "System of record", "definition": "The approved system where the official state is stored", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "System of engagement", "definition": "Where people interact, discuss, request, or collaborate around the object", "required": "Required when different" }, { "name": "System of analysis", "definition": "Where reporting, dashboards, metrics, or insights are generated", "required": "Required when metrics exist" }, { "name": "System of action", "definition": "Where work is executed, automated, or triggered from the source", "required": "Required when workflow exists" }, { "name": "Accountable owner", "definition": "Business role accountable for accuracy, use, change control, and dispute resolution", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Technical owner", "definition": "Technology, platform, data, or integration owner responsible for system reliability and access", "required": "Required when system-backed" }, { "name": "Data steward / content steward", "definition": "Role responsible for definitions, quality, metadata, retention, and review hygiene", "required": "Required when material" }, { "name": "Primary consumers", "definition": "Teams, roles, workflows, dashboards, agents, vendors, or controls that depend on the source", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Approved uses", "definition": "What the source can safely support", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Disallowed uses", "definition": "What the source must not be used to decide, automate, publish, or report", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Freshness window", "definition": "How current the source must be to be decision-grade", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Evidence standard", "definition": "Proof required before the source can support a decision, governance action, AI recommendation, or external commitment", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Confidence rating", "definition": "High, medium, low, provisional, stale, disputed, or retired", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Lineage / dependencies", "definition": "Upstream sources, transformations, approvals, integrations, and downstream records that depend on this truth object", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Sensitivity level", "definition": "Public, internal, confidential, restricted, regulated, customer-sensitive, employee-sensitive, legal-sensitive", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Access rule", "definition": "Who can view, edit, approve, export, automate, or supersede the source", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "AI use rule", "definition": "Whether AI can retrieve, summarize, classify, recommend, update, or act on the source", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Human review rule", "definition": "When a human owner must validate the source before it is used by people or AI", "required": "Required when material" }, { "name": "Exception path", "definition": "Where conflicts, stale records, duplicate truths, missing owners, or disputed sources are escalated", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Supersession rule", "definition": "How a source replaces another source, retires duplicates, or marks prior records as obsolete", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Review date", "definition": "Date the source must be reviewed again", "required": "Yes" }, { "name": "Version", "definition": "Artifact version, owner, last reviewed date, and change history", "required": "Yes" } ], "truth_object_types": [ { "type": "Customer / account truth", "common_source_systems": "CRM, customer master, support system, data platform", "governs": "Customer identity, commitments, tier, renewals, support status", "consumers": "Sales, success, support, finance, AI agents", "failure_risk": "Duplicate customer records, unsupported AI outreach, stale commitments" }, { "type": "Employee / org truth", "common_source_systems": "HRIS, identity platform, org chart, access system", "governs": "Role, manager, team, cost center, access, employment status", "consumers": "People leaders, finance, IT, compliance, workforce AI", "failure_risk": "Wrong routing, access errors, shadow org structures" }, { "type": "Work / delivery truth", "common_source_systems": "Jira, Azure DevOps, ServiceNow, portfolio tool", "governs": "Initiatives, backlog, dependencies, owners, status, blockers", "consumers": "Product, engineering, transformation, executives, agents", "failure_risk": "Hidden work, conflicting status, AI prioritizing stale work" }, { "type": "Decision truth", "common_source_systems": "Decision Log, governance workflow, board / executive records", "governs": "Decision, owner, rationale, evidence, effective date, supersession", "consumers": "Leadership, delivery teams, governance, AI assistants", "failure_risk": "Decisions lost in meetings, conflicting interpretations" }, { "type": "Metric truth", "common_source_systems": "Metric registry, BI semantic layer, finance system, data catalog", "governs": "Definition, formula, source, owner, refresh cadence, threshold", "consumers": "Executives, operators, analysts, AI insight tools", "failure_risk": "Competing dashboards and false confidence" }, { "type": "Policy / control truth", "common_source_systems": "GRC, policy repository, legal system, security platform", "governs": "Policy, control, exception, approval, control owner, audit evidence", "consumers": "Risk, compliance, security, audit, AI governance", "failure_risk": "Unreviewed exceptions, outdated controls, unsupported AI decisions" }, { "type": "Knowledge truth", "common_source_systems": "Confluence, SharePoint, knowledge base, LMS", "governs": "Playbooks, SOPs, architecture, onboarding, operating standards", "consumers": "Employees, vendors, AI search, onboarding, support", "failure_risk": "Stale guidance becoming AI training context" }, { "type": "AI initiative truth", "common_source_systems": "AI Initiative Owner Register, model registry, vendor system", "governs": "Use case, owner, value, risk tier, model, data, controls, human review", "consumers": "AI governance, product teams, executives, legal, audit", "failure_risk": "Pilot sprawl, no accountable business owner" }, { "type": "AI output truth", "common_source_systems": "Source system plus AI output log or review queue", "governs": "Generated summary, recommendation, classification, action, confidence, reviewer", "consumers": "Operators, customers, governance, agents, analytics", "failure_risk": "AI output treated as fact without source and review" }, { "type": "Vendor / integration truth", "common_source_systems": "Vendor inventory, CMDB, API gateway, procurement system", "governs": "Vendor, system, integration, contract, data flow, owner, SLA", "consumers": "Procurement, IT, security, data, risk, product", "failure_risk": "Unknown dependency, unmanaged data sharing, broken integrations" } ], "source_roles": [ { "role": "System of record", "purpose": "Stores the official approved state", "boundary": "Owns the current truth of the object", "examples": "HRIS for employee status, CRM for customer record, GRC for control exception" }, { "role": "System of engagement", "purpose": "Supports human collaboration and interaction", "boundary": "Can discuss or request changes, but does not replace the record", "examples": "Teams, Slack, email, meeting notes, forms" }, { "role": "System of analysis", "purpose": "Transforms records into metrics, trends, and insights", "boundary": "Can analyze truth, but must link back to governed definitions and source data", "examples": "BI dashboard, data warehouse, semantic layer, metric registry" }, { "role": "System of action", "purpose": "Executes workflow, automation, notifications, tasks, or agentic action", "boundary": "Can act only inside approved boundaries and with valid source references", "examples": "Workflow tool, agent platform, service desk automation, orchestration layer" }, { "role": "System of evidence", "purpose": "Stores proof that a claim, decision, control, or output is valid", "boundary": "Can support decisions, audits, AI recommendations, and reviews", "examples": "Evidence pack, source logs, audit trail, data catalog, lineage graph" }, { "role": "System of memory", "purpose": "Preserves durable organizational knowledge over time", "boundary": "Can teach future teams and AI what was decided, why, and under what context", "examples": "Decision log, knowledge base, policy repository, architecture record" } ], "confidence_states": [ { "state": "High confidence", "definition": "Named owner, approved system, recent refresh, documented lineage, governed access, clear AI rule", "use_rule": "Decision-grade and automation-eligible inside approved boundaries" }, { "state": "Medium confidence", "definition": "Owner exists and source is mostly current, but lineage, definition, or downstream dependency is incomplete", "use_rule": "Can support team-level decisions with owner review" }, { "state": "Low confidence", "definition": "Source exists but owner, freshness, quality, access, or definition is weak", "use_rule": "Do not use for material decisions without validation" }, { "state": "Stale", "definition": "Freshness window missed or review date expired", "use_rule": "Flag, route to owner, and block from AI-generated material conclusions" }, { "state": "Disputed", "definition": "Multiple sources disagree or teams challenge the authoritative record", "use_rule": "Escalate through source owner, data steward, or governance forum" }, { "state": "Retired", "definition": "Source has been superseded or should no longer be used", "use_rule": "Archive, redirect, and prevent future AI retrieval or workflow use" } ], "scoring_logic": [ { "dimension": "Owner clarity", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Is there a named accountable owner and backup owner?" }, { "dimension": "System clarity", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Is the record, engagement, analysis, action, and evidence role clear?" }, { "dimension": "Evidence quality", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Is the source current, defined, linkable, and supported by evidence?" }, { "dimension": "Lineage visibility", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Are upstream and downstream dependencies known?" }, { "dimension": "Access and sensitivity control", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Are permissions, retention, and sensitivity rules appropriate?" }, { "dimension": "AI readiness", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Can AI safely retrieve, summarize, recommend, or act with source links and human review?" } ], "validation_rules": [ { "condition": "No owner", "rule": "Flag as not decision-grade and assign an owner before use by AI or governance." }, { "condition": "No system of record", "rule": "Classify as unmanaged truth. Route to source rationalization." }, { "condition": "Duplicate source", "rule": "Mark as disputed until one record is approved or roles are clarified." }, { "condition": "Stale review date", "rule": "Downgrade confidence and notify accountable owner." }, { "condition": "AI use with no source link", "rule": "Block from material communication, decision, or automation." }, { "condition": "Sensitive source with broad access", "rule": "Escalate to access owner, security, legal, or compliance depending on data type." }, { "condition": "Dashboard without metric definition", "rule": "Mark as analysis-only, not decision-grade." }, { "condition": "Workflow action without authority boundary", "rule": "Block autonomous action until decision rights and controls are defined." }, { "condition": "Retired source still referenced", "rule": "Redirect consumers and update AI retrieval rules." } ], "ai_prompts": [ { "name": "Classify truth object", "prompt": "Given this source description, classify the business object, source role, owner type, sensitivity, and AI use boundary." }, { "name": "Detect duplicate truth", "prompt": "Compare these sources and identify whether they represent duplicate, conflicting, complementary, or superseded records." }, { "name": "Score source confidence", "prompt": "Score owner clarity, system clarity, evidence quality, lineage, access control, and AI readiness from 0 to 5. Explain each gap." }, { "name": "Generate exception", "prompt": "Draft an exception record for a stale, disputed, unowned, or unsafe source with recommended owner and escalation path." }, { "name": "Create website version", "prompt": "Render this source-of-truth map as a website artifact with executive summary, worksheet table, and workshop instructions." }, { "name": "Create Lapemo ingestion object", "prompt": "Convert the completed map into JSON with IDs, owners, systems, source roles, confidence, evidence links, and AI rules." } ], "mapping_rules": [ { "from": "Truth object ID", "to": "Lapemo source object" }, { "from": "System of record", "to": "Platform registry" }, { "from": "Accountable owner", "to": "Ownership map" }, { "from": "Evidence standard", "to": "Evidence checklist" }, { "from": "AI use rule", "to": "AI control boundary" }, { "from": "Exception path", "to": "Escalation map" }, { "from": "Confidence rating", "to": "Executive control plane" } ], "render_targets": [ "DOCX", "PDF", "Markdown", "JSON", "Interactive form", "CSV import template", "Lapemo in-app workflow" ], "review_cadence": "Quarterly for normal sources; monthly for AI, regulated, executive, or customer-impacting sources; immediate review when systems, owners, workflows, or policies change." }