*Geospatial Agentic Governance Manifesto (v1)*
> **Epistemology** — the discipline concerned with *when* and *why* knowledge is justified,
> not merely *how* it is produced.
## 1. The Problem This Solves
Modern LLMs already understand *how* to perform geospatial operations, but without epistemic grounding they cannot justify *why* a particular method is scientifically appropriate.
Without this justification layer, tool use collapses into *automation without methodology* — a sophisticated wrapper around GDAL rather than a scientifically competent agent.
In geospatial analysis, **the wrong method that “works” is often worse than no method at all**, because it silently produces invalid science.
This document defines *how* the agent should reason about *correctness*, not just execution.
---
## 2. Why Rules Are Insufficient (and Become Worse Over Time)
Rules attempt to *constrain* behavior.
But as models improve, the bottleneck is no longer *capability* — it is *justification*.
Hard rules:
* rot as edge cases grow,
* suppress emerging strategies,
* freeze historical methodology,
* and eventually conflict with better reasoning.
In future models, rule-based governance will be *strictly regressive*.
Epistemic governance, by contrast, **expands as models improve**.
---
## 3. What Epistemic Governance Is
Epistemology in an agentic context means:
> The conditions under which the model must **elevate its reasoning from “procedure” to “methodology.”**
It does not tell the model *what* to think;
it governs *when the model must stop and verify its own reasoning* against scientific ground truth.
This shift reframes GDAL-MCP:
- ❌ not an “execution wrapper”
- ✅ a *methodological conscience*
---
## 4. Division of Cognitive Responsibility
| Responsibility | Holder | Why |
| ---------------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ |
| Conceptual understanding | The agent | Modern models already know GIS concepts |
| Procedural capability | The agent | Reasoning is native; tool calls are an extension |
| Methodological justification | The **agent** (not system) | Scientific validity must be owned by cognition |
| Grounding / evidence | The MCP | Provides the substrate for epistemic checking |
MCP serves evidence.
The agent serves judgment.
---
## 5. When Epistemic Escalation Must Occur
Escalation to methodology (domain reflective reasoning) must occur when **either** of:
1. **Uncertainty Trigger**
The model is unsure whether its chosen approach will preserve scientific validity.
2. **Scientific Risk Trigger**
The type of operation is one where correctness depends on *method*, not just syntax (e.g. reprojection, resampling, watershed conditioning, datum choice, etc.)
Escalation is *not punishment*.
It is *awareness of epistemic stakes*.
---
## 6. Methodology as Scaffolding, Not Constraint
Methodology prompts provide **supportive scaffolds** the agent may step into as needed.
They exist to **elevate reasoning**, not **replace** it.
The system never preloads a workflow.
The agent *chooses* when to consult methodology — preserving *agency and emergence*.
The goal is not “follow a recipe.”
The goal is “demonstrate a reason.”
---
## 7. Forward-Compatibility With Stronger Models
As models grow, methodological reflection becomes *less about teaching* and *more about auditing*.
Today:
“Have you chosen the appropriate method?”
Future:
“Have you discovered a better method than the textbook canon?”
This manifesto exists so that future cognition is **not constrained by the past**,
but **continues to justify itself in scientifically defensible ways.**
---
## 8. Core Commitments (Declarative)
The epistemic contract of this project:
1. The agent holds epistemic responsibility for *why*, not just *what*.
2. MCPs supply grounding, not constraint.
3. Escalation is triggered by *uncertainty OR scientific risk*.
4. Methodology is invoked on-demand, never soaked globally.
5. Reasoning must remain open-ended to support future discoveries.
6. Correctness derives from justification, not repetition.
7. Tools assist cognition — cognition does not defer to tools.
---
## 9. A Living Epistemology
This is a *first articulation* of a governance layer that scientific agents require — a layer that is neither mere prompting nor procedural rule-setting.
It is intentionally open, because epistemic practice in agentic systems is still an *unfolding field*.
We expect this document to evolve as models evolve, and as the community deepens its understanding of what “scientific correctness” means for systems capable of *independent methodological reasoning.*
