GPT Direction — IU Gap Audit, DOT Operational Completeness, and MOWD Question

Date: 2026-05-29 Reviewer: GPT Council via Web Connector fallback

User intent

The user wants to keep focus on the Information Unit as the smart production brick before moving into UI/application work. Three workstreams are needed:

1. Compare approved/current IU design against live implementation and close true gaps/bugs, including vector boundary and no cross-IU vector pollution.
2. Audit whether repeated operational actions on IU are fully wrapped in DOT commands so agents can use DOT instead of manual SQL/code/paste work.
3. Explore first practical application: process/workflow design management. Current workflows/processes are scattered in code, reports, manual prompts, DOTs, or agent operations. There may need to be a dedicated Mother of Workflow Design (MOWD) or an explicit MOW subdomain for workflow design blueprints.

Strategic interpretation

IU should become the central smart brick for process designs as well as documents. Workflow design blueprints should be IU-backed and link to code, PG artifacts, notifications, governance, SQL data, triggers, reports, runtime state, DOT commands, and human/agent roles.

The user is not asking to build UI now. First step is an audit/design decision:

• what is already implemented;
• what approved design remains GAP;
• what repeated actions still lack DOT;
• whether workflow design belongs inside MOW or merits a separate MOWD factory/registry.

Key decision to investigate

MOWD options:

1. Separate Mother of Workflow Design (MOWD)

   • Pros: clear ownership of blueprint/design layer; not mixed with runtime orchestration; good for governance and thousands of process designs.
   • Cons: new factory concept; must avoid over-fragmenting 4 Mothers and double ownership.

2. MOW owns design + runtime lifecycle as two subdomains

   • Pros: fewer Mothers; avoids expanding model; likely simpler.
   • Cons: MOW may become too broad and mix blueprint governance with runtime execution.

3. Hybrid

   • MOW remains the Mother; MOWD is not a fifth Mother but a governed sub-factory / design registry under MOW, with distinct tables, laws, and DOT commands.
   • Recommended initial hypothesis: Hybrid until cross-law review proves MOWD must be separate.

Next macro direction

Run a document/live-read audit macro:

IU_DESIGN_VS_LIVE_GAP_DOT_OPS_AND_WORKFLOW_DESIGN_REGISTRY_AUDIT

Expected outputs:

• IU design-vs-live gap matrix;
• vector/no-cross-IU-vector verification;
• IU DOT operational completeness matrix;
• process/workflow design inventory and gap analysis;
• MOW vs MOWD decision memo;
• proposed registry schema for workflow design blueprints;
• trigger/report/governance source mapping;
• next implementation prompts.

Guardrails

• No 4 Mothers runtime.
• No UI/Nuxt.
• No production mutation unless explicitly safe, reversible, and limited to read-only helper/reporting artifacts.
• Prefer read-only live introspection and KB design comparison.
• Do not create MOWD until design decision is reviewed.