WorldModel™
WorldModel™
A Governed Operating Architecture for Hyper-Personalized Physical Environments
Executive Summary
WorldModel™ is a governed operating architecture for intelligent physical environments. It is designed for destinations where personalization must be meaningful, multilingual, accessible, and contextually aware, while remaining safe, auditable, privacy-by-design, and aligned to operator policy and jurisdiction.
WorldModel™ is not a single feature, and it is not a control system you “install.” It is an architectural approach for coordinating multi-vendor subsystems under one shared operational truth and one enforceable rulebook, so the environment behaves coherently across zones, systems, and time.
Canonical reference design and definitions:
For the authoritative list of issued patents, pending applications, and trademarks:
Boundary note
This page describes an architectural approach. Realized outcomes depend on deployment configuration, operator policy, consent design, device capabilities, content design, and operational context.
Contents
• Why this matters now
• Outcomes WorldModel™ is designed to support
• The structural problem WorldModel™ addresses
• Definitions
• The architectural answer
• Architecture at a glance
• Governance as a first-class system layer
• Privacy-by-design identity, consent, and inclusion
• Digital Twin relationship
• Optional decentralized identity, provenance, and settlement
• Relationship to AV++® and incremental adoption
• Where WorldModel™ applies
• Intellectual property posture and delivery model
• How Mad Systems engages
• Next steps, decision gates, and deliverables
• Boundary statementWhy this matters now
Destination-scale initiatives increasingly require environments that can coordinate many vendors, many touchpoints, and many operational constraints over long lifecycles.
The limiting factor is rarely a single subsystem. The limiting factor is whether the destination has a governed operating architecture that can coordinate subsystems under one operational truth, and one enforceable rulebook, as defined by the destination’s policies, constraints, and priorities.
As autonomy increases, the cost of incoherence increases. Without an explicit operating architecture, destinations accumulate integration debt, policy drift, inconsistent guest experience, and escalating operational risk as they scale.
Outcomes WorldModel™ is designed to support
WorldModel™ is designed to support outcomes that are difficult to sustain with disconnected systems and point integrations at scale.
- Hyper-personalized experience across touchpoints, not isolated moments
- Multilingual continuity across zones, devices, and staff interactions
- Accessibility treated as a system constraint, not a retrofit
- Coherent routing and guidance under safety, timing, and crowd constraints, where configured
- Policy-governed operation across cultures and jurisdictions, where configured
- Auditability and operational transparency, including traceable decision pathways, where configured
- Venue-grade resilience, including provisioning the right compute near the point of experience, where configured
Capabilities described here reflect architectural support and system design intent. Realized outcomes depend on deployment configuration, policy definition, device capabilities, and operational context.
The structural problem WorldModel™ addresses
Most destinations are built as a collection of excellent subsystems, each optimized locally, including media, lighting, audio, show control, wayfinding, signage, accessibility services, apps, sensors, ticketing, and operations tools.
At scale, the failure mode is systemic:
- Subsystem conflicts and inconsistent behavior
- Policy drift across zones, vendors, and time
- Inconsistent guest experience across touchpoints
- Governance gaps as autonomy increases
- Escalating operational risk over long lifecycles
WorldModel™ addresses the systemic layer by providing a governed operating architecture that makes the environment behave as one coherent system, under one operational truth and one enforceable rulebook.
Definitions
These definitions are architectural. They describe roles, boundaries, and intent, not implementation details.
Core terms
Intelligent Physical Environment
A real-world venue, campus, district, ship, or infrastructure environment where multiple systems coordinate behavior over time, including experience delivery, safety, accessibility, and operations.
Governed Operating Architecture
A system-level design that coordinates multi-vendor subsystems under a shared operational truth and an enforceable rulebook, so behavior remains consistent, auditable, and policy-aligned at scale.
Operational truth
The destination’s shared, internally consistent view of current state and constraints, used to prevent subsystem conflicts, policy drift, and incoherent behavior across zones and time.
WorldModel™ and related governance terms
WorldModel™
A continuously updated internal representation of relevant environment state, including space, devices, events, operational context, constraints, and permitted context, designed to serve as shared ground truth for consistent behavior across subsystems.
Value System
A deployment-defined set of prioritized principles and non-negotiables that govern tradeoffs, expressed in forms that can constrain actions.
Constitution
A deployment-defined, enforceable rules artifact that operationalizes the Value System into constraints, including consent posture, jurisdictional boundaries, operator policies, and cultural requirements. “Constitution” here is a governance artifact, not a legal constitution, and not a representation of compliance outcomes.
Cognitive Governance Layer™ (CGL™)
The layer that evaluates proposed actions against the Constitution, the Value System, consent constraints, jurisdictional constraints, temporal constraints, and operator policies, approving, modifying, or rejecting actions before execution. AI components are treated as proposal generators, not decision authorities.
Governance stack components
Temporal Governance Framework™ (TGF™)
A governance layer that applies time-scoped rules and windows to constrain behavior, including schedules, event timing, curfews, blackout periods, rate limits, and other time-dependent constraints, where configured.
Environmental Dynamics Engine™ (EDE™)
A predictive dynamics layer that models near-term environment evolution, such as crowd flow, occupancy, queue propagation, congestion, safety margins, and expected interaction load, where configured.
Identity Continuity Layer™ (ICL™)
A layer that maintains consent-bound continuity of identity, group context, and permitted attributes over time, enabling consistent personalization, accessibility continuity, and operational coordination without requiring centralized personal databases, where configured.
Multi-Agent Orchestration Layer™ (MAOL™)
A coordination layer in which multiple specialized agents can propose candidate actions in parallel, with resolution governed by shared objectives and hard constraints, where configured.
Consent posture
The deployment’s explicit model for what data, attributes, and behaviors are permitted under visitor consent, operator policy, and jurisdiction, including retention limits and disclosure constraints.
The architectural answer
WorldModel™ defines a governed operating model for intelligent physical environments.
Instead of treating personalization, AI, accessibility, navigation, safety, monetization, and operations as separate concerns, WorldModel™ treats them as interdependent system behaviors operating over a unified internal representation of the environment.
At its core, WorldModel™ provides:
- A continuously updated operational truth representing space, devices, events, constraints, and permitted context
- Distributed, on-premises execution suitable for venue environments, including provisioning the right compute near the point of experience, where configured
- Privacy-by-design identity and context handling, subject to consent, policy, and jurisdiction
- Orchestration across competing objectives, where configured
- A governance gate designed to constrain autonomous behavior prior to execution
Architecture at a glance
WorldModel™ expresses a closed-loop system.
Sense and ingest
Signals can arrive from venue systems, sensors, schedules, staff tools, ticketing and reservation systems, operational inputs, and permitted visitor interactions.
Update a shared operational truth
WorldModel™ is updated continuously so subsystems can act from the same contextual ground truth.
Propose candidate actions
Specialized logic and, where used, AI components can propose actions based on current state and objectives, including experience, operations, accessibility, and safety objectives.
Govern every action before execution
A Cognitive Governance Layer™ evaluates proposed actions against the Value System and Constitution, plus consent, jurisdictional, temporal, and operational constraints. AI components are treated as proposal generators, not decision authorities.
Execute, and record
Approved actions can be dispatched through on-premises execution and adapter-based integrations into downstream systems. Governance outcomes and justification records can be retained as part of operational transparency, where configured.
Governance as a first-class system layer
Central to WorldModel™ is constitutional governance.
Proposed actions, whether generated by deterministic logic or AI components, are evaluated against an explicit Value System that can encode safety requirements, accessibility rules, cultural and ethical constraints, and operator-defined policies.
A Cognitive Governance Layer™ evaluates, modifies, approves, or rejects actions before execution.
AI components are treated as proposal generators, not decision authorities. Autonomous behavior is intended to be constrained by governance rules prior to execution.
The architecture can support auditable decision pathways and justification records, where configured. Compliance outcomes are determined by deployment-specific configuration and governance policy, not by architectural design alone.
Privacy-by-design identity, consent, and inclusion
WorldModel™ is designed to support meaningful adaptation without requiring large centralized personal databases.
Where configured, it can support:
- Consent-bound identity continuity for individuals, families, and groups
- Parental and guardian controls for youth environments, where required by operator policy
- Selective disclosure of attributes rather than raw identity
- Data minimization and controlled retention as structural design choices
Specific recognition modalities are implementation-dependent and deployment-specific.
Digital Twin relationship
Digital Twin programs typically focus on maintaining representations of assets, spaces, and processes, including geometry and operational state.
WorldModel™ can ingest Digital Twin representations as inputs. It extends beyond typical Digital Twin scope by adding consent posture, policy constraints, and constitutional governance for coordinated action in public environments.
Digital Twin integration is optional and deployment-specific.
Optional decentralized identity, provenance, and settlement
Some deployments require portable entitlements, cross-venue continuity, auditable provenance, and automated licensing or royalty settlement.
Where required, WorldModel™ can incorporate decentralized identity and ledger-based mechanisms as optional integration layers, while keeping governance, consent posture, and data minimization as primary constraints.
Examples of supported mechanisms, where configured, include:
- DID-linked profiles and token gating, including membership verification and attribute predicates using verifiable credentials or zero-knowledge proofs
- Smart-contract licensing rules, usage metering, provenance anchoring, and royalty settlement tied to presentation events
- Offline-first operation with cached policy snapshots, queued settlement, and governance context preserved for audit
Important boundary: these mechanisms are deployment-specific. They are not prerequisites, and they do not replace the Value System, Constitution, and CGL™ as the decisive governance gate.
Relationship to AV++® and incremental adoption
WorldModel™ is designed to be adoptable incrementally.
Mad Systems systems such as QuickSilver®, CheshireCat®, Alice®, Lory®, CaterPillar®, WonderLens™, and TeaParty® can be deployed independently to meet immediate project scopes.
WorldModel™ describes how those systems, and equivalent third-party subsystems, can be composed into a governed destination-scale operating architecture when required by scale, policy, and lifecycle constraints.
Where WorldModel™ applies
WorldModel™ is designed for environments where scale, diversity, safety, and long-lifecycle operations require a shared, governed framework, including theme parks and destination attractions, museums and cultural institutions, multi-venue districts and mixed-use destinations, resorts and hospitality campuses, cruise ships, retail and food and beverage environments, smart cities and civic destinations, public infrastructure, and national initiatives, including Vision 2030 and Expo 2030.
It is particularly relevant where multiple designers, integrators, operators, and technology vendors must deliver consistent outcomes under one operational truth and one enforceable rulebook.
Intellectual property posture and delivery model
WorldModel™ describes an architectural class and system design approach for governed, auditable, privacy-by-design personalization across multi-vendor systems.
Mad Systems has issued patents and pending patent families that relate to this architectural class and its operational methods. Patent status varies by jurisdiction. We do not assert exclusivity in jurisdictions where patents have not issued. This page does not predict prosecution outcomes, and nothing here is intended as a representation of claim scope.
For the authoritative list of issued patents, pending applications, and trademarks, please see:
Our delivery model supports implementation through the client’s chosen prime integrator and local partners, with Mad Systems providing architecture, specialist engineering, and enablement.
How Mad Systems engages
Mad Systems engages in three ways.
Architecture and reference design partnership
Define the governed operating architecture, system boundaries, and reference designs that your selected integrators and operators can implement.
Licensing
License the architectural framework, governance model components, and related intellectual property, with implementation performed by your preferred delivery ecosystem.
Delivery collaboration
Collaborate with integrators, fabricators, and operators to implement governed orchestration, validation, and operational readiness aligned to destination policy and constraints.
Next steps, decision gates, and deliverables
The fastest path to a governed destination-scale architecture is a structured sequence with clear outputs and decision points.
Executive architecture briefing, 90 minutes
- Purpose: align leadership on the operating model, governance boundaries, and integration with existing vendors and Digital Twin programs.
- Outputs: one-page architecture summary, scoped list of target outcomes, and proposed evaluation plan.
- Decision gate: proceed to constraint mapping, or stop.
Constraint and policy mapping workshop
- Purpose: capture hard constraints that must govern the environment, including safety, accessibility, language coverage, jurisdictional requirements, consent posture, and operator policies.
- Outputs: draft Value System, Constitution outline, and a preliminary non-negotiables matrix.
- Decision gate: approve the governance frame, or revise.
Architecture fit assessment
- Purpose: determine how the reference architecture maps onto the destination’s systems, zones, operational model, and delivery ecosystem.
- Outputs: reference architecture fit map, subsystem boundaries, integration surfaces, and a phased adoption plan supporting standalone or composed deployments.
- Decision gate: approve an architecture package for implementation, or pause.
Architecture package for implementation, implementation-ready
- Purpose: provide a package your chosen integrators and operators can implement under one governed framework.
- Outputs: reference architecture, governance and Constitution framework, subsystem boundary definitions, validation plan, and operational readiness checklist.
- Decision gate: initiate licensing and delivery collaboration.
Next step
Please start with the canonical Architecture reference:
If you would like to evaluate fit, please contact Mad Systems, and include:
- Organization and role
- Environment type and scale (single venue, district, multi-venue)
- Target opening date or operational deadline
- Current major subsystems (show control, AV, ticketing, apps, Digital Twin, and so on)
- The outcomes you must make non-negotiable (safety, accessibility, multilingual continuity, auditability, and so on)
Boundary statement
This page defines the architectural scope and system-level capabilities of an approach. Implementation details, specific algorithms, configuration choices, and deployment outcomes are intentionally abstracted. Nothing in this page constitutes a guarantee, a compliance representation, or a characterization of legal claim scope.
