AI Ingestion
Code Management
The code is the definitive key for a historical chain of facts. Because the Ledger provides cryptographic finality, a code cannot be renamed or remapped once it is witnessed.
The Module--Property Anchor
The module--property convention is not merely for organization; it is a structural anchor between the Subject (slug) and its Attributes (code).
To prevent data collisions at scale, the module portion must provide enough specificity to describe exactly which sub-domain of the entity is being updated.
| Context | The Conflict | The Resolution (Recommended) |
|---|---|---|
| Financial | account--balance_usd Ambiguous if the user has multiple accounts. |
primary_checking--balance_usd |
| Compliance | user--status Too generic; conflicts with login or billing status. |
kyc_verification--approval_status |
Standards for Multi-Decade Sustainability
When defining your codes within the Partner Gateway, adhere to these foundational requirements to avoid irrecoverable technical debt:
1. Explicit Units of Measure
Units must be baked into the code name. Never assume the "system default" for currency, weight, or distance will remain the same for twenty years. A code named amount is an audit failure; settlement_amount_gbp is a point of fact.
2. Absolute Specificity
Avoid generic descriptors like value, data, or type. If the property describes a temperature, the code should be ambient_sensor--celsius_reading. Specificity ensures that as you add new modules to the same entity, you never overlap or "ghost" an existing historical chain.
3. Immutable Intent
The Ledger treats every unique code as a new cryptographic timeline. If you change a code from user--mail to identity--email, the history is effectively severed. The Gateway layer must treat code naming as a permanent commitment to the audit trail.
Architectural Note
The Partner Gateway serves as the Source of Truth for Schema. Because the Parallel Ledger does not enforce a rigid relational structure, the burden of consistency lies entirely with your code-naming strategy.
Treat your Code List as a protected internal asset.
Code Management
The code is the definitive key for a historical chain of facts. Because the Ledger provides cryptographic finality, a code cannot be renamed or remapped once it is witnessed.
The Module--Property Anchor
The module--property convention is not merely for organization; it is a structural anchor between the Subject (slug) and its Attributes (code).
To prevent data collisions at scale, the module portion must provide enough specificity to describe exactly which sub-domain of the entity is being updated.
| Context | The Conflict | The Resolution (Recommended) |
|---|---|---|
| Financial | account--balance_usd Ambiguous if the user has multiple accounts. |
primary_checking--balance_usd |
| Compliance | user--status Too generic; conflicts with login or billing status. |
kyc_verification--approval_status |
Standards for Multi-Decade Sustainability
When defining your codes within the Partner Gateway, adhere to these foundational requirements to avoid irrecoverable technical debt:
1. Explicit Units of Measure
Units must be baked into the code name. Never assume the "system default" for currency, weight, or distance will remain the same for twenty years. A code named amount is an audit failure; settlement_amount_gbp is a point of fact.
2. Absolute Specificity
Avoid generic descriptors like value, data, or type. If the property describes a temperature, the code should be ambient_sensor--celsius_reading. Specificity ensures that as you add new modules to the same entity, you never overlap or "ghost" an existing historical chain.
3. Immutable Intent
The Ledger treats every unique code as a new cryptographic timeline. If you change a code from user--mail to identity--email, the history is effectively severed. The Gateway layer must treat code naming as a permanent commitment to the audit trail.
Architectural Note
The Partner Gateway serves as the Source of Truth for Schema. Because the Parallel Ledger does not enforce a rigid relational structure, the burden of consistency lies entirely with your code-naming strategy.
Treat your Code List as a protected internal asset.