THE WORLDMODEL COORDINATION INTERFACE
WorldModel™ OS
The WorldModel™ OS interface layer is designed to let existing systems coordinate through shared operational information and defined governance controls within the WorldModel™ architecture.
This page describes the reference interface and its intended responsibilities. A project or offering must separately identify implemented software, supported interfaces, availability and verified capabilities.
The complete WorldModel framework, published definitions and wider reference material are available at WorldModel.global .
View all five architecture diagramsCANONICAL REFERENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION
A defined architecture. A specified implementation.
Published reference architecture: ten architectural layers and eleven cross-cutting policies, as defined at WorldModel.global. The layers and policies describe the complete architecture.
Project implementation: the participating systems, adapters, information, authority, redundancy and verification are specified for the installation. Publishing an architecture does not establish that every interface or capability is implemented in every Mad system.
TECHNICAL DETAILMake integration carry meaning.
Open the engineering detailClose this sectionLook for the red circuit symbol for engineering detail.
WorldModel™ OS defines the interfaces through which audiovisual, interactive, content, enterprise and facility systems can cooperate. Shared definitions describe state, roles, limits, intent, proposed actions and outcomes.
Adapters connect those definitions to the interfaces of participating systems. A project can preserve suitable existing infrastructure while adding the coordination it needs.
WorldModel™ OS names the operational interface to the ten-layer architecture. It defines the coordination model through schemas, APIs and adapters. A project establishes the concrete interface definitions and implemented adapters it will use; this page does not announce a general-purpose operating-system download or a universal device driver.
| Mode | What the interface carries |
|---|---|
| State Exchange | Share relevant observations, resource status and permitted session context. |
| Intent Submission | State the outcome being requested and the limits that apply. |
| Proposal Submission | Offer a candidate action for governance evaluation. |
| Governance Decisions | Return an authorization, modification, refusal or referral with its basis. |
| Execution Dispatch | Route approved actions through suitable interfaces and return the relevant results. |
TECHNICAL DETAILKeep the authority with the action.
Open the engineering detailClose this section
A subsystem can report its capability, submit a candidate action and receive a governed response. CGL™ evaluates that proposal against the venue's values, constitution, permissions, operating regime and relevant context.
An approved action is translated into the appropriate downstream operation. The receiving system retains its applicable local controls and protections. OSOL™ preserves hard safety priority.
AAL™ observes and records the decision and its context without gating execution. This gives operators a basis for understanding what was requested, what was permitted and what the system reported.
SESSION CONTINUITY
Carry the relevant experience across touchpoints.
Defined interfaces can carry permitted language and accessibility settings between zones, devices and sessions. The current consent, purpose and time window govern their use.
Federation through FCL™ supports coordination between venues and operators while preserving their local authority. The scope of shared information and the rules for its use remain explicit.
TECHNICAL DETAILUse operational history to make better changes.
Open the engineering detailClose this section
State transitions, governance decisions and outcomes can be retained for incident review, replay, simulation and regression assessment. Decision records make it possible to examine which rules and conditions applied.
Mad Intelligence™ connects those interfaces to persistent requirements and outcome-specific evidence. A dispatched command, an observed effect and an established result each retain their meaning.
When a subsystem changes, the project can assess the affected interfaces, permissions and evidence relationships. QuickSilver® provides a distributed compute foundation, while TeaParty® and other qualified controllers can execute the required behavior.
PLAN THE INTEGRATION
Define the scope around the venue.
Begin with the systems that need to cooperate, the outcomes they serve and the authority each requires. Specify the information exchanged, the relevant timing, the evidence returned and the behavior expected during disconnection or reduced capability.
These are engineering decisions made for the installation. They turn the framework into a practical integration plan that can be commissioned, operated and maintained.
TECHNICAL DETAILKeep the proposal, decision and result distinct.
Open the engineering detailClose this section
A participating presentation system reports that an approved caption track is available. A session requests captions in its permitted language. The coordination path considers the request and current rules, returns an allowed action or a refusal, and dispatches an authorized presentation through its adapter. The resulting observation and decision record remain distinct.
For implementation, define the actual state fields, identifiers, time references, adapter behavior, authority and error responses. A sent command is not proof that the visitor received the caption. The observation required to establish that result is part of the installation’s verification design.
This is an illustrative exchange, not an API specification or evidence of a commissioned adapter. Read the canonical five interaction modes.
LET’S BUILD WHAT COMES NEXT
Connect the systems around a shared purpose.
Bring us your existing infrastructure, planned experiences and operating requirements. We will define a practical path for integration.
Talk integration with Mad