Overcoming LLM Limitations
Large language models excel at pattern completion, but three structural gaps surface in high-stakes settings:
Uneven latent coverage. Training data reflects frequency, not consequence. Rare-but-critical patterns—and domain guardrails—arrive blurred or missing.
Correlation-first inference. Next-token prediction does not tell us whether a move is still causally valid for the object we are optimising.
Implicit confidence. Token probabilities reveal preference order, not calibrated risk. Over long rollouts, microscopic error rates compound into system-level failures.
We solve these gaps by wrapping foundation models with a measurement-driven control plane. The model keeps doing what it is good at—pattern exploration—while surrounding systems decide which proposals survive contact with reality.
Measurement Anchors Every Decision
Dimensional blueprints name the raw signals that matter for the optimisation object. Every decision references current measurements before it can proceed.
Quantised arcs carry the reusable reasoning segments. The LLM may suggest them, but orchestration only runs arcs whose entry predicates are satisfied and whose exit guarantees remain within measured bounds.
Arc-cohort ledgers store causal evidence. When effect signatures drift, the ledger triggers blueprint refresh, exploratory arcs, or human escalation instead of letting degradation remain silent.
With this structure, the LLM proposes and the environment disposes. Creativity stays intact; blind trust in compressed priors disappears.
Reframing "Knowledge Updates"
Dropping long primers into prompts rarely extends the model’s latent geometry. Instead, we:
Reframe unfamiliar concepts using structures the model already recognises—observed measurements, causal relationships, proven procedures.
Log the supporting measurements before an arc can reuse the new framing. If we cannot measure it, we treat the primitive as unsupported instead of bluffing.
Backfill historical traces whenever the blueprint improves. Regenerating sufficient statistics keeps legacy contracts aligned with the new understanding.
Think of it as measurement-led fine-tuning: knowledge becomes trustworthy because the environment re-validates it, not because the model memorised another paragraph.
Confidence Through Verification, Not Guesswork
Because the orchestration layer monitors admissibility margins, we can attach explicit confidence to every decision:
Scenario-level confidence comes from how far the measured state sits from the edge of the validated acceptance region.
Arc-level confidence derives from ledger density and run-to-run variance.
Plan-level confidence aggregates the weakest link across the composition so long rollouts surface their riskiest segments.
When confidence drops below thresholds, the agent either collects more measurement, swaps to exploratory arcs, or requests human support. We do not ask the LLM to self-assess; we compute confidence from the same evidence that justifies running the arc in the first place.
Putting It Together
Compressed, uneven priors
Dimensional blueprints + cohort analysis
Decisions reference the live object, not generic averages
Correlation-heavy rollouts
Quantised arcs with contracts
Only proven reasoning segments execute; deviations trigger reroutes
Implicit confidence
Admissibility monitoring + ledger density
Confidence is observable and auditable, enabling safe escalation
Rather than fighting foundation models, we give them guardrails that translate pattern fluency into controllable, verifiable systems. Measurement keeps the contracts honest, backfill stops stale knowledge from poisoning future runs, and orchestration ensures the model’s next token only matters if reality agrees.
Last updated
Was this helpful?